Hello:

I guess if you say something long enough some people will believe it. I didn't think we were that dumb, though. You DO remember the Supreme Court Justice who said that he can't describe porn, but he knows it when he sees it.

Well, I know torture when I see it, and we torture. I don't care how many times the decider decides to change the meaning of words.

Go ahead, tell me how wonking a guy upside his head repeatedly ain't torture.

excon

Does the U.S. torture in the same manner as, for example, a terrorist country in the Middle East? If you say no, does it mean that the U.S. does not torture? No. I do not know where President Bush is coming from when he says the U.S. does not torture. Maybe the methods of extracting information are not as vicious as another country's, but it is still there.

Does the U.S. torture in the same manner as, for example, a terrorist country in the Middle East?Hello shy:

The trouble begins with parsing the word. Bush and Gonzales did it. You're doing it. I won't.

Besides, what kind of question is that?? Do other countries torture people worse than we do?? If the answer is yes, does that mean our torture is OK?? I'm sorry. I don't get it.

There was a time when we didn't torture because of who WE were. We didn't treat people based upon how they treated us. That was a time when we held the moral high ground. We were a good, clean and pure country.

Now we torture, and the excuse we use is, well look at who THEY are.

excon

This is not a new discussion.

Take into consideration the level of threat, case by case.

I do know that since I'm not in the unique position of facing the types of people that wish the US, and other nations, were wiped off the face of the earth, I don't know how find out what needs to be found out to prevent more murders.

By just backing away from those we know have information, when they don't tell what they know, even though we asked really, really nicely... would be stupid. What if you knew someone was about to launch a domestic attack on (pick any large gathering), you know who and how, but not when or where... if you could ask, do you think they would tell you? No. So walk away and let them. Now your borderline complicit.

By just backing away from those we know have information, when they don't tell what they know, even though we asked really, really nicely... would be stupid....... Now your borderline complicit.Hello again Cap'n:

Our enemy's have ALWAYS had information that could save lives... Nothing is different here. Besides, we won WW II without torturing anyone. How'd we do that?

Complicit in their behavior?? Nahhhh... Not even close. We didn't torture nazi's and we're not, by any stretch of the imagination, complicit in what they did.

Arrrgh.

excon

...we won WW II without torturing anyone. How'd we do that?
What proof do we have that torture occurs now, or that, if it does, it isn't justifiable?

If the same degree of media was available during WWII, would we have seen elements of torture? I believe we would.

I find it difficult to believe any escalated conflict can go without someone's use of persuasion, and without someone labelling their methods as torture.

One thing that has changed is the liberals have changed the meaning of torture to include putting 'panties' on Muslim terrorist's heads. Yet we are suppose to sit back and accept them beheading our contract workers and so forth as if it is just another part of the daily news.
I am so tired of the Politically Correct libs mincing words in a do as I say not as I do way.
If I had a gun and someone was shooting at me I would shoot first.

No koolaid for me!

What proof do we have that torture occurs now, or that, if it does, it isn't justifiable?Hello again, Cap'n:

Bush and Gonzales say that head slapping and water boarding ISN'T torture. They're saying that because they're doing that.

It's torture. You can call it something else, but that doesn't change what it is. I can call an elephant a stove too.

If you read what I previously wrote, you'll see that it's NEVER justified. That's NEVER. I don't care who THEY are. I care who WE are.



If the same degree of media was available during WWII, would we have seen elements of torture? I believe we would.Individuals who acted on their own?? I would guess there were. But as a policy?? No, No and No.


I find it difficult to believe any escalated conflict can go without someone's use of persuasion, and without someone labelling their methods as torture.Difficult as it may be for you to believe, but we were NEVER accused of torturing anyone before this - NEVER!!

excon

Based on interpretation, asking in a stern voice is considered torture.

Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture)

Torture, according to international law, is:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

So like I said, asking too loudly would be intimidating... we'd better get out the kid gloves or just let them have there way and not make them play by the same rules!

Torture, Al-Qaeda Style - May 24, 2007 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html)

So like I said, asking too loudly would be intimidating... Hello again, Cap'n:

We're apparently not on the same page here. I don't think asking loudly would be torture.

But you're missing the part about whacking somebody upside their head and waterboarding them. Either we got to start talking about the same thing here, or we got to stop talking.

excon

Well, if the fundies get their way, we are well along the road to Armageddon. There are people actively planning to destroy not just liberal democracy, but all human existence because they believe it is "god's will".

I'm not familiar with "waterboarding" but I'm thinking you don't approve.
Whacking someone upside their head, I'm accustomed to. Once thought to be appropriate for child-rearing.

What did these individual do to be "whacked" or "boarded?"

I don't think that it is right and there should be other more effective ways to accomplish what they want. One thing I always thought was if someone was torturing me for information I would mislead them on purpose which I heard some prisoners do so what did it accomplish!

I'm not familiar with "waterboarding" but I'm thinking you don't approve..... Whacking someone upside their head, I'm accustomed to. Once thought to be appropriate for child-rearing.......What did these individual do to be "whacked" or "boarded?"Hello again, Cap'n:

You're great. You ask the perfect questions...

Waterboarding can be accomplished in several deviant ways. The one you'd be most familiar with, is sticking the guy's head in the toilet until he's about to drown, and then ask him a question. If he hesitates, dunk his head in again. You must've seen that in countless movies, and on the TV show 24.

We do it better though. We tip a guys head back and pour water up his nose till he thinks he's going to drown. If he doesn't answer, we do it again.

And, it isn't a matter of whether I approve or not. It's a matter of whether WE as a country approve. We never have before, and I'm not talking about weenies, either. I'm talking about tough guys like Ike Eisenhower - the 5 star general who won the war..

And, no. I don't think whacking upside the head is good for child rearing or interrogation.

What did they do to get whacked?? They got arrested. You're the one who thinks they have information. All I know is, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do I trust that they were arrested due to our legal standard of "probable cause"?? I do NOT.

They might be really bad guys - and they might not. Lots of the supposed "bad guys" we kept in Gitmo, have been let go - free as a bird. They couldn't have been too bad, but we tortured them anyway.

excon

Well, if the fundies get their way, we are well along the road to Armageddon. There are people actively planning to destroy not just liberal democracy, but all human existence because they believe it is "god's will".

Comments on this post
excon agrees: I can't tell who you're talking about - the fundies or the islamofacists.
__________________
Is there a difference?:p

Give each a choice--a month of home-cooked meals, comfortable beds, and plenty of morale-lifting reading material, friendly guards, terrific counselors, animal therapy (with good supervision, caring for rescued dogs and cats in an adjoining animal shelter), regular group social events.

When the month is up, give them a choice. More of the same if they tell all they know or torture (give examples) if they don't.

Cap'nRich, we have a Plan. There will be a Confession Committee of three people (excon will be one of them and I will be the second) to assess the information that has been gathered after The Month of Love and Grace. The Confession Committee will privately and personally interview each detainee who has confessed in order to determine the truth of the confession.

Btw, all Confession Committee decisions are final and are not subject to lawsuit, argument, or temper tantrums.

The Confession Committee will then systematically and lovingly personally interview the detainees who have not confessed. It will be determined by the Confession Committee why the unconfessed detainees have retained vital information or even if any of the detainees has, in fact, vital information.

The Confession Committee will not retain prisoners indefinitely whereby amenity funding will be spent down to zero and all baked goods will be eaten. The Confession Committee is in need of a third member. Please apply, if you so desire. If you are chosen, you will then be privy to the Rules and Regulations as well as to all the details of the Plan of the Confession Committee.

Thank you, Wondergirl, for this update.
I didn't see a link to the application page for the stated position, but I am quite interested.
I feel it would be an honor to serve (cookies).

Cap'nRich, a major part of the Confession Committee Member Acceptance Procedure has to do first with the demeanor, attitude, and character of the applicant. Is there anyone on AMHD who would be willing to attest to your good character and be willing to write a reference letter describing your demeanor and attitude heretofore? Be forewarned--this person him/herself will have to be of sound mind and solid morals.

If the letter is accepted and is worthy enough to be placed on file, you will be sent a Confession Committee Application.

This Confession Committee member is extremely pleased that you have already said "it would be an honor to serve (cookies)".

I would have sent ye a recommendation from me crew but I recently seen ye already been there, Captain Mary Kidd!
Oh, and see rule #5:
Pirate Laws! The Arrrrtimate list of rules for being a Pirate (http://www.piratelaws.com/)

How they got information, without torturing, in WWII: Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html?hpid=topnews)

AHA!! So I'm right!!

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Further explanation was forbidden. The more than 3,400 prisoners who stayed there were off the books, too, partly because operations at Fort Hunt were "not exactly legal" according to the Geneva Conventions, the National Park Service said.WP: WWII interrogators break silence - Washington Post - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14431095/)

Good thing the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost of today did not get this info . Then . No doubt the ACLU would've insisted the Germans get lawyers. But wait ;FDR and Truman were Democrats. Maybe that is why this secret was able to endure.

tomder55 agrees: I wonder if they fed the prisoners only ethnic German food and gave them copies of Mein Kampf, printed in German, to read in their free time.
Do you doubt that this approach actually does produce better intelligence? Or is it that you think the satisfaction of slapping them around is worth the reduced quality of intelligence produced by that approach?

Well, if the fundies get their way, we are well along the road to Armageddon. There are people actively planning to destroy not just liberal democracy, but all human existence because they believe it is "god's will".


I believe Martin Luther King may be considered a "fundie" taking

Romans 12:
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good ---------------------
------

Literally.

And so, I don't think torture can be justified.


Grace and Peace

Hello again Cap'n:

Our enemy's have ALWAYS had information that could save lives.... Nothing is different here. Besides, we won WW II without torturing anyone.

excon

Except for the folk in Hiroshima!

Do you doubt that this approach actually does produce better intelligence?

I don't know . Ask Khalid Sheik Mohammed .

Except for the folk in Hiroshima!!
Ask the folks at Pearl Harbor

I don't know . Ask Khalid Sheik Mohammed .
Ask him what? Whether he would have given more and better information if he hadn't been tortured? If he says yes, should I torture him until he says no?

It really has nothing to do with him or any other detainee. It has everything to do with you and me and what our government does in the name of our "security". Even if you don't give a crap for any moral or ethical reasons, if you care about real security, you have to care about the quality of information obtained by interrogators. The low reliability of torture-induced statements is well-documented. That leaves revenge as the only believable motive for doing it. If you'd rather have revenge than security, then it makes sense to support this Administration's policies on the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques. Otherwise, not. There are a lot of people who would rather have revenge than security, it turns out.

Men are violent; its in their genetics! Just give them a flag and a god to kill for and let 'em loose! Crafty leaders all know this. Whip men up so they release the wellspring of their repressed rage!

Torturing others in the name of god and/or country with a group of like minded individuals gives lots of guys thrills. The madness of the mob mentality. We only have to look to the KKK to see this reality enacted out. Look at AbuGrahb; how they all worked together to humiliate and torture guys-and they *photographed* the torture. There are very few torturers who operate alone. They are called serial killers such as that Lutheran deacon, the BTK killer.

Monotheism and warfare seem to be a natural fit!

I wasnt looking for a competition on who killed the most people. Sounds like you were. Nice!!!!
That is so off base! Skell! Who's side are you on??

Did we torture any nation, any entity or religious faction, into a sneak attack on our soil? On our people!! EVER??

You think we should not respond to attacks on our nation!

No not at all. I was merely making the point that just as you use torture now, you would also have used it in WWII. I didn't make it correctly. My apologies.

But the answer is yes. You do use torture. Yes you have in the past. No responding to an attack on your nation is not torture, although those who lived in Hiroshima I'm sure have gone through and went torture after the A-bomb just as those in Pearl Harbour did after the Japanese attack.

War is ugly and tortuous. Your country is no different to any other. Or do you actually think that the US doesn't and has never tortured?

Besides, we won WW II without torturing anyone. How'd we do that?

Says who? Where did you get the idea that we didn't torture enemy agents and soldiers during WWII? The OSS (precursor of the CIA) didn't use torture? Wild Bill Donavan didn't condone torture? Bull!!

Get real, excon. There has been torture used in EVERY WAR IN HISTORY by both sides, whether it is legal or illegal. That's why officers and black ops/spec ops guys are taught torture resistance techniques... because there's a very good chance that they may end up in enemy hands and be tortured for information they possess.

The only difference is that in the old days, the media knew enough not to ask questions or investigate such issues because to do so would compromise their country. The scumbags calling themselves the "press" today WANT to compromise their country, and go looking for torture stories to print so that they can have a "gotcha" moment against their government and hurt the country.

This is the real world, excon. I don't have any problems with torturing terrorists. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd do it for the fun of it, and eat a sandwich in front of the terrorists face while attaching the electrodes to his scrotum and flipping the switch. Torturing terrorists to stop another terrorist attack? That's just happy-making for me.

What I have problems with is anyone who WOULDN'T be willing to torture a terrorist to keep Americans safe. I have problems with anyone who thinks that the comfort of a terrorist is more important in the overall scheme of things than protecting American lives. I have a problem with anyone who says that the people charged with keeping our citizens safe should be forced to do so with their hands tied, their eyes blindfolded and their feet shackled... but if they make a mistake, they should suffer the consequences.

Here's a perfect "ferinstance". For a while there, Congress was demanding how much the government knew before 9/11. Who should they blame for 9/11 slipping by the various intelligence agencies? Why didn't they have the information to stop 9/11? Remember those hearings? I sure do.

Just think... if we had grabbed Atta, a known terrorist and terrorism associate, when he was entering the country, incarcerrated him, interrogated him using every available method, and sqeezed him for every bit of information he had, 9/11 would have been avoided.

So who is to blame for 9/11?

The people who are afraid of using torture to obtain intelligence information that would have prevented 9/11, that's who.

And clearly some of us haven't learned our lessons from 9/11.

Keep in mind, excon, that I'm not even arguing over the issue of "what constitutes torture". I am taking it that torture, as it is legally defined, IS taking place. And my response to that is, "Good, where do you want me to put the next needle?"

Whatever it takes, excon. Whatever it takes. Anything less is an abrogation of their responsibilities to protect this country by any means necessary.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

I'd respect him a lot more if he were as honest about it as you are.

excon

I'm trying to find that romantic time in American history you speak of.

Certainly it wasn't during the insurgency in the Philippines after the Spanish-American war . Captured Filipino prisoners had a short life, so there was little need for an Abu Gharib or Gitmo. They did not use water boarding but the "water cure " . They forced water into the prisoner's stomach . There was nothing secret about it . William Howard Taft testified under oath that U.S. soldiers were under orders to use the “water cure” on captives.

The CIA ran experiments on psychiatric patients and prisoners in the 1950s perfecting their sensory deprivation techniques. During Vietnam the ran they Phoenix program ;about 40 locations where torture was practiced .

The big difference I see is that Bush may be the first one who tried to go public with what has been secretive black-ops before.

It can be argued never again ;but people who say never before had better re-examine the record.

Hello again, El:

Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties.

Then 9/11 happened and we learned our lesson. Or some of us did, anyway.


American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

Well, there's an assumption, if I ever heard one. Did they "respect us" or did they exploit us for our position on torture? Seems to me that countries that tortured people but knew that we wouldn't do the same to their agents were using that as a tool. Mohamed Atta knew that even if he was caught he wouldn't be tortured, and he used that against us. Iraq held us to a standard of how to treat our prisoners, but had no problem with torturing its own prisoners. Ditto in Afghanistan and in Iran, and practically every other dictaroship in the world. They use our position on treatment of prisoners against us, while having no issue with the torture of their own prisoners. They don't respect us for our position. They laugh at us for it.


The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

Yes, and thank G-d for it. This is the first president in decades with a brain and the guts to actually do whatever is necessary to fight the enemy. AT ALL COSTS.


I'd respect him a lot more if he were as honest about it as you are.

excon

Politics is politics. He still has to play the propaganda game. Not being a political leader, I have no such constraints. I can speak openly about it.

And be honest... would you really have more respect for Bush if he came out and said openly "Yes, we are torturing our POWS, and we intend to continue doing so"? Or is that just rhetorric on your part? I'm guessing the latter.

Elliot

Then 9/11 happened and we learned our lesson. Or some of us did, anyway.
Different people learned different lessons. I'm just thankful that the proportion of people who learned the same lesson you did, though probably a majority on 9/12, is now much smaller and still shrinking.

I'm trying to find that romantic time in American history you speak of.Hello again, tom:

I agree that I look at my country through rose colored glasses. However, if given a choice, I'd prefer to think of the glass as half full. Are we as good as I think we are? No. Are we as bad as you think we are? Yes - NOW.

excon

Different people learned different lessons. I'm just thankful that the proportion of people who learned the same lesson you did, though probably a majority on 9/12, is now much smaller and still shrinking.

Oh... so I guess you LIKED having terrorists attacking us once or twice a year for 40 years (on average). I didn't. I'd prefer that we DO something about it, and if that requires torture of the enemy, then screw them and the camel they rode in on. They're terrorists. They didn't sign the Geneva Conventions. They actively break the rules of the Geneva Conventions every time they attack civilians, as they did on 9/11. And if an ounce of torture results in a pound of prevention, then I say pour it on.

Remind me not to have you at my back if we ever have to fight a war here at home. You'd be too worried about collateral casualties and disproportionate force and treatment of POWs to protect yourself, much less me.

THIS is the very reason we need an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. People who don't volunteer start squacking about unfairness, prisoners rights, disproportionate force, how terrible the US government is, etc. and generally get in the way of doing anything productive to stop the enemy. Volunteers generally are willing to get the job done, don't give much of a damn about how the enemy feels, have no problem with using disproportionate force, and aren't beyond torturing the enemy to stop them from committing the next terrorist act. Conscripts b!tch and moan (as many did in Vietnam... John Kerry to name just one), while volunteers get the job done.

Ordinaryguy, you can save your moral superiority. It's getting in the way of my family's safety. My dad was in 1 World Financial Center when the planes hit (right across the street from the WTC) and my brother-in-law was in Tower 1. Both survived. The next time they might not. If torturing one or two Mohammad Attas will keep the next attack from being successful, then I'm all for it. Your moral superiority gets in the way of that, and it therefore affects MY safety and that of my family. I don't find it enlightened or good or decent or charming, or anything else like that. I find it dangerous to me and my family. And to you and yours as well. So save the moral superiority until after the war is over and the terrorists are no longer a threat.

Elliot

IF torture produced better intelligence, and therefore more security, we could debate whether it was worth engaging in. Since it doesn't, the point is moot, unless satisfying your thirst for vengeance is more important to you than security.

Hello:

Go ahead, tell me how wonking a guy upside his head repeatedly ain't torture.

excon



It is torture. Now I'm not sure just which specific occasion this torture is the subject of, but in general torture is most often about getting information. And although the info when received may not be that accurate, it's still a start. Then there is torture just to torture with no reason. And "yes," unfortunately America has been guilty in isolated occasions. Mostly out of vengeance, on rare occasions in our other conflicts, as opposed to the stupid idiots that made the mostly embarrassing pyramid of naked detainees in the Iraq War. When it comes to torturing just to torture with no reason, the Japanese were notorious for this when they invaded the Philippines, and also the Vietcong back in Nam.


Bobby

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/skell.html)Skell (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/skell.html) agrees: Do you really think we will b e free from a world with terror once this war is over? Hahaha! good one!
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/skell.html)

First of all, which war do you mean? The one in Iraq or the overall war on terror? I equate the two, but many people do not, mostly for political reasons. So what do you mean by "this war"?

Second, do I believe that terrorism will cease to exist one the war on terror is over? No. But I expect the THREAT of terrorism to become more manageble, less prolific, and more of a local threat and less of an international one.

Third, I remember back in the 70s people asking "Do you really think Communism can ever be defeated in a cold war?" The answer to that was "No, but I think the SOVIET UNION can be defeated, and Communism can be made less prolific and threatening to the world at large." And guess what... I was right.

The same is true of the war on terrorism. Can we eliminate terrorism completely? No, and it would be absurd to think that we could. But we can defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates, cut the influence that the terrorists have, kill the leadership, break up the networks, find the cells, and turn terrorism into a more manageble local threat rather than an international one.

Elliot

IF torture produced better intelligence, and therefore more security, we could debate whether it was worth engaging in. Since it doesn't, the point is moot, unless satisfying your thirst for vengeance is more important to you than security.

Well, that's a mighty big assumption being made by a non-expert in the field of torture and interrogation. Or do you have some background in intelligence gathering that you haven't informed us about? How do you know it doesn't produce better intelligence? What is your basis for that claim? Did you just happen to hear it somewhere, or do you have clinical evidence to back it up.

And if torture were NOT an effective way of getting information from an enemy, why would our special operations guys be trained in SERE (torture resistance)? If torture weren't a good way of getting information, there would be no reason to teach our people how to resist torture.

Plus, it seems to me that whatever methods our intelligence guys are using, they are producing credible leads that are leading to the capture of additional terrorists, breaking up of terrorist cells, foiling of terrorist plots, etc. If you say the intelligence guys are using torture, I'll take your word for it. But it seems clear to me that if they ARE using torture, then torture is an effective method of gaining credible and actionable intelligence. The proof is in the pudding... whatever the interrogators are doing is working.

So what is the basis for your statement that "torture doesn't produce better intelligence"?

Elliot

So what is the basis for your statement that "torture doesn't produce better intelligence"?Hello El:

Torture MIGHT produce results... So does ethnic cleansing... At some point in time, one has to look at their actions rather than the results.

I liked us a lot better when we hadn't yet descended into this slime pit... As a matter of fact, I don't like us AT ALL for doing that. I shed some of my blood for this country. I did it for the values we used to hold. I'm sorry you don't hold them anymore. If your values are now the ones we go by, I'm leaving... This isn't my country anymore.

You rightwingers always say that you're not the first to do it (Clinton did), so it's OK to do it now. BS. You ARE the first. I know my country - and YOU ARE THE FIRST.

excon

Guys….there is torture, and then there is torture. But to speak of torture without a referent is just senseless.

Hello again, DC:

We HAVE a referent. The secret memos that were recently disclosed, authorized 1) head slapping, 2) waterboarding, and 3) extreme temperatures. Those are SPECIFIC torture techniques. Nothing generic there.

The Wolverine understands the specifics too. He just thinks they're OK.

excon

DC I agree .But we had posts on the issue of definitions on the other board and they got redundant . Suffice it to say that I think no one in the country supports Uday Hussein methods .

There was no torture in the prison that we know of. Anyone, anyone can be broken in 6 days, most in 2 or 3 days…that I am sure about.

Hello again, tom:

Yahhh, our torture is better than Uday's, so it's ok…. But, you're not alone in your thinking…

I'll tell you what DID surprise me. All the Democratic presidential front runners said they would torture somebody too, if they thought he had valuable information.

I guess I'M the odd man out.

excon

Tom

Some people just want to inflict pain. During the cold war interrogation methods were brought to a form of art by the CIA; torture like Uday Hussein methods was seldom used. Particularly effective methods don't involve butchery, let's call it for what it is and make a distinction between interrogation, torture and butchery.

This goes back to that definition issue. excon will tell you that you know torture when you see it and places no distinction ;harsh interrogation is the equivalent to torture as you see in post #49

Hello again:

I didn't say that YOU know torture when you see it. Obviously, you don't. I do, however.

Besides, I thought we WERE being specific about torture. I say that what we do (the specific techniques above) IS torture. The Wolverine agreed with me. You don't. Ok, I'm sure you will after you read the following.

Interrogation is asking questions. It doesn't involve hitting. Hitting is something you do with your hand. Asking questions is something you do with your mouth. One is interrogation, the other is torture.

If that's not specific enough for you, causing one to be uncomfortable due to extreme temperatures, in order to get someone to talk, is torture. Again, interrogation is something you do with your mouth. Freezing somebody out is something you do with your hand.

Anything you do to a prisoner with your HAND in order to get him to talk, is torture.

Are we clear now?

excon

Tom

Of course interrogation can include torture and butchery by some peoples perception, the problem is with their perception, not with the definition.

excon
Your perception would include handcuffing, it just don't fly. To simply cause somebody mental or physical anguish don't fly, nor does the simple inflection of pain. It appears to me you are relying on dictionary definition which is a mistake because that is not the way we arrive at meaning.

Besides, I thought we WERE being specific about torture. I say that what we do (the specific techniques above) IS torture. The Wolverine agreed with me.

Actually, no I didn't. What I said was that I'm going to forgoe the question of "what is torture" for the purposes of this discussion, and make the assumption that you are right and it is torture. I do not necessarily agree that it is so. But for this conversation, and for the purposes of making my point, it just doesn't really matter, so I'll leave that argument off to the side for now.


You don't. Ok, I'm sure you will after you read the following.

Interrogation is asking questions. It doesn't involve hitting. Hitting is something you do with your hand. Asking questions is something you do with your mouth. One is interrogation, the other is torture.

Sorry, but hitting alone doesn't constitute "torture". Hitting can take place on both sides... and in that instance it is called a "fight" not torture. Even when hitting takes place by one side alone, it doesn't constitute "torture". My kids hit each other all the time. One hits the other and the other comes crying to mommy or daddy. Does that constitute torture? Two school kids get into a fight and one hits the other. Is that torture? "Hitting", even in the context of doing so to obtain information does not constitute "torture".


If that's not specific enough for you, causing one to be uncomfortable due to extreme temperatures, in order to get someone to talk, is torture.

Then I guess my summer camp was guilty of torture. They took us out in middle of the night for overnight hikes (essentially forced marches), made us sleep in the woods (very cold in the mountains) and kept us awake at all hours (sleep deprivation) and made us eat lousy burnt food (which we prepared ourselves). It was a pretty rugged camp. Thus, by your definition, the camp is guilty of torture... not even to obtain information, but just for pleasure and entertainment. Ours, as it turns out. We had a ball, and most of us ended up with a cold or cough at the end of the 3 or 5-night hikes.


Anything you do to a prisoner with your HAND in order to get him to talk, is torture.

Tickling? Sex? Fingernails on a chalkboard? Do these constitute torture?


Are we clear now?

No, not really. Because YOU don't seem very clear in you definition. Your definition of turture doesn't hold true, and many harmless activities could be interpreted as "torture" by your definition.

Furthermore, deprivation of food and water isn't something that is done with the hand. In fact it is something that your hand DOESN'T do... give the prisoner food and water. That can constitute "torture" but is something NOT done with the hand.

How about this... if I sit there and insult the prisoner, cursing him out, insulting his religion, calling his mother and sister all sorts of nasty names, driving him first to anger and then eventually helplessness to defend himself from these insults, does that constitute torture? What if I show him pictures of his family and tell him all the nasty things I intend to do to them if he doesn't talk, driving him to despair. Is that torture? Many psychologists would put that in the category of psychological abuse and psychological torture. But I haven't done anything with my hands. It's all been done with my mouth. But I'll bet that the prisoner would complain of forceful coersion, psychological torture, abuse, etc.

The line between torture and interrogation cannot be as easily drawn as you are attempting to do so here. Hands are NOT the only way to torture someone or drive them to psychological despair and helplessness.

Here's how an interrogation by excon would look.

Excon: We know that there is a container of VX gas that has been leaked into US territory. We know that you terrorists were planning on using it to make a bomb. Tell me where the VX gas is hidden!!!

Prisoner: Go suck a goat, you camel humping piece of crap American!!!

Excon: I'll ask you one last time. Where is the VX gas?!?!?

Prisoner: Bite me you American bastard. Your mother has fleas and your father humps pigs.

Excon: So your not going to give me the information I need? Even if I say "pretty please"?

Prisoner: Kiss my a$$, you lover of sheep. Your scrotum is filled with the eggs of a thousand mosquitoes.

Excon: Well, I can't get anything out of him. We're done here.

The next day, a bomb full of VX gas explodes on Main Street, USA killing thousands. But at least we didn't torture any terrorists.

Tell me I'm wrong about how you would conduct an interrogation, excon.

Elliot

Tell me I'm wrong about how you would conduct an interrogation?Hello again, El:

You are not wrong.

I know you guys are making hay with my definition. It was the best I could do on the fly. I think it was pretty good, actually, and you KNOW what I mean. Go ahead, have a good time. However, some people won't get sidetracked by your silliness. They KNOW it's subterfuge because you don't have real arguments to use.

I'll take that as a win for my side.

excon

I've been reading all of this with great interest.

It seems to me that the whole issue will never be resolved.

One, no one can positively identify and define what constitutes "torture."

Two, "torture" has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen because no one can positively identify and define what it is.

My students are taking a practice version of the state test they'll have to take in a couple of months. They absolutely despise it. By making them take it, am I "torturing" them? I have two that I guarantee will lose it on test day due to anxiety. Is the state therefore guilty of "torture?" After all, the goal is to get information from them.

I carpool with two female teachers for two hours a day. They both like to talk. A lot. Am I being tortured by this estrogen saturated environment?

The whole debate is pointless, I think. We all know that governments will do what governments will do, and they don't give a tinker's damn what you and I think about it. So unless you're planning a revolution, I don't see the point. Gripe, moan, and sign petitions to your heart's content. The government's methods will descend again into super-secrecy, no one will know, people will congratulate themselves on forcing the government to change their ways.

I went to the school El mentioned, the one called SERE school. It sucked. Bad. Hardest thing I've ever gone through. Funny thing is, y'all ain't even hit the tip of the iceberg yet as far as "interrogation techniques" go. There's stuff they did to us in that school that would make John Wayne puke, and that was AMERICANS training AMERICANS.

So if everyone knows torture doesn't work, why in the hell would Uncle Sam shell out major bucks to send knuckle-draggers like me to hell and back to learn how to resist it? Why would there be entire divisions of people in virtually EVERY government--civilized and not--whose sole jobs are to tweak, refine, and devise new ways to extract information from someone unwilling to give it?

Sorry to break some people's bubbles, but it WORKS. Sure, there's different styles for different types of prisoners, and you have to find the style that'll work for your guy. But guess what? They ALL involve coercion, pain, discomfort, and confusion to one degree or another, plus a whole host of other things that you'd probably rather not know about. When you get right down to it, the basics of effective interrogation is really just "good cop/bad cop" on steroids. You can't have the good cop without the bad, and vice versa.

Excon: We know that there is a container of VX gas that has been leaked into US territory. We know that you terrorists were planning on using it to make a bomb. Tell me where the VX gas is hidden!!!Hello again, El:

The problem with right-wingers is you aren't deft enough to grasp the fundamentals of a good argument. You're kind of knee jerk guys. If it sounds good, and O'Reilly thinks its cool, then let's do it.

However, people like me understand things you don't. Let me see if I can elucidate you.

In the very first instance, you have to take reality into account. Since the proclamation of WMD's in Iraq, it's not something you have proven very adept at.

You use the words "we know that VX gas is blah, blah, blah...." But, in the real world, we haven't demonstrated that we know, or would know, anything of the sort... Who did we get our information from? Another terrorist? Is this another slam dunk from George Tenant? The Cia? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Some of these people, who we've tortured, didn't know anything... Because, in the real world, we let them go... We really did. Certainly, they didn't KNOW anything, but I'll bet we thought they did. As a matter of fact, I'll bet there were some cowboys like you, who said "we KNOW that VX gas..... blah blah blah, and YOU know where it is"

These people were sold to the US as terrorists. We even found some of our own. We thought they were terrorists... But, in fact, we had no idea whether they were or not. But, we tortured them anyway, and we were wrong. We've let LOTS of 'em go, because we were wrong.

So, I don't buy the basis for your phony interrogation you attribute to me... In the real world, it wouldn't happen that way. I don't believe we'd ever KNOW that some guy KNEW something worth torturing him over. It certainly wouldn't happen with our intelligence agencies.

In your dreams and short term right wing fantasy, it might. But, not in the real world.

excon

Excon,

So you, in your black-and-white reality, can't conceive of any situation in which we KNOW for a fact (due to provable intelligence... a recorded phone call with code words for times and locations, perhaps) that there is a threat and that person "xyz" knows when and how the threat will take place and we NEED to get that information? No such possibility exists because YOU say that we will "never know for 100% certain"? I don't think so.

If you think that our intelligence community failed with regards to WMDs in Iraq (and I don't think they did, but let's assume they did), perhaps part of that failure was because we didn't torture the right guys for the right information. Perhaps if we HAD used such techniques before going into Iraq we would have more definitieve answers. Perhaps if we had used such techniques against Mohammad Atta when INS had him, 9/11 would never have occurred, and there would be no war in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else. Maybe the intelligence failure isn't in using these techniques, but rather in NOT HAVING USED THEM when we had the chance.

So, why did we let so many guys go? Was it because we were "wrong" about them? Or was it because guys like you put so much pressure on the government that they ended up letting people go who should not have been let go? Since so many of these guys have gone back to fighting the USA in the very places they were caught the first time, it leads me to believe that we weren't wrong about them. It's just that someone in the government caved to guys like you.

Elliot

excon

I agree, errors have been made but what is the alternative? Certainty is not something easily came by, in fact theories is all we have in science. 'The best theory' is all any of us can hope for. In the CIA they used to have a term and I don't know if it is still used, but the term was, “Follow the dog back.” This was something counter intelligence did when a suspect was thought to be a mole. It works pretty good but it is not fool-proof. The alternative of being certain is simply not practical or we would have thousands of moles running our government.

So excon, what is the alternative to torture, and still get information in a timely manner?

I think the right wingers have made valid cases.

How about this; pleasure?

First we give them meth, opiods, sex, good food, cigarettes/ nicotine , caffeine [ chocolate ] , alcohol, etc...
Then we ask for information and if we don't get information, they get benadryl, tyelenol, celibacy, mre[s], chewing gum, and o'douls.





Grace and Peace

So excon, what is the alternative to torture, and still get infomation in a timely manner?

I think the right wingers have made valid cases.

How about this; pleasure?

First we give them meth, opiods, sex, good food, cigarettes/ nicotine , caffeine [ chocolate ] , alcohol, etc...
Then we ask for information and if we don't get information, they get benadryl, tyelenol, celibacy, mre[s], chewing gum, and o'douls.



Grace and Peace
Follow the link to some methods that work very well

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/Kubark%2082-104.pdf

Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/#kubark)

So excon, what is the alternative to torture, and still get infomation in a timely manner?

I think the right wingers have made valid cases.

How about this; pleasure?

First we give them meth, opiods, sex, good food, cigarettes/ nicotine , caffeine [ chocolate ] , alcohol, etc...
Then we ask for information and if we don't get information, they get benadryl, tyelenol, celibacy, mre[s], chewing gum, and o'douls.





Grace and Peace
Wondergirl offered a batch of cookies...

these people don't have the same response mechanisms that we would consider to be normal..


offer fifty million dollars and you'll get a response from the west... offer fifty camels and you'll get the sand jerks attention. It will always be a matter of value systems. I really don't mean to demean, but our values and cultures are so far apart...

Wondergirl offered a batch of cookies...

these people don't have the same response mechanisms that we would consider to be normal..


offer fifty million dollars and you'll get a response from the west... offer fifty camels and you'll get the sand jerks attention. It will always be a matter of value systems. I really don't mean to demean, but our values and cultures are so far apart...
It’s been awhile since I’ve heard anything so racist…

It’s been awhile since I’ve heard anything so racist…
You collect a very jaundice view of society! You change your avatar from an image of Christianity to something that you wish to represent decadence! How can anyone trust where you're coming from?! You're very title... depicts your aversion from society!


TALK TO THE HAND, DARKSTUFF! YOUR STUPIDITY IS BLOCKED!!

Do I have to bring up the case of David Hicks again that all you right wingers have ignored over and over when I have brought it up in the past. Numerous threads I have discussed his case on and each time you simply skim over it.

You tortured him, got nothing and let him go on a guilty plea on charges you made up to prosecute him. The torture got nothing. As excon has pointed out this is just one of many cases.

Elliot you twisted Excons definition to suit your own argument. And it could be seen straight through. To relate his definition of torture to your summer camp was as ridiculous a thing as I have read in this thread. Ill go with the Con and say it was a win for him!

Win? Win for whom?

SK, Tell us where your David was , how he got selected for a trip to GITMO, what he said or didn't say to keep him there, what "we" did or didn't do, how he left, what happened to him once he left, and what's he up to now. Please be as explicit as you are compliant...

**edit** David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who, after five years detention by the United States government under suspicion of involvement with terrorism, became the first Guantánamo Bay detainee to be convicted under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006.

A true friend of the American people...

Ive brought it up before when you guys try and defend your pathetic president and his men. Ive brought it up to show the incompetence of your previous attorney general and his unlawful Military Commissions Act. Ive brought it up before when you guys have preached what a wonderful and comfortable place Gitmo is for these terrorists. Ive brought it up many times and each time it has been ignored. Frankly I can't be bothered going through it all over again for you to twist and distort it like you no doubt will. Ill provide a few links below that you will tear apart and we'll agree to disagree if you decide to read them.

He was tortured for nothing. You'll say it was for something but really know you got nothing.

Law Council of Australia - David Hicks - Five Years Without Justice (http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/hicksjustice.html)

The David Hicks affidavit - World - www.smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/10/1102625527396.html)

'New evidence' backs Hicks's torture claim. 31/10/2005. ABC News Online (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1494779.htm)

You might also want to do some research on Major Michael Mori, his military attorney and the treatment he has received because he stood up for the rights of his client.

That's all I can be bothered with right now because any discussion here just gets twisted to support your current regime.

I've never been to GITMO.. But, neither have I been bombed out of of the Twin Towers... I guess I don't have enough perspective yet. Do you feel comfortable were you live? I'm not trying to twist anything! But based upon the links YOU'VE provided, I think I think that hick's had more to run from than to hide!

No where, NO WHERE, in anything I've read in these links, regarding this guy, did he say he knew that he put himself in harms way and admitted he engaged with people's opposed to the US and our endeavors. You concern yourself with how many times you brought this up...

American or un-American... Freedom wanting or not freedom wanting...

Again, I will ask: Who's side are you on?

Personally I think David Hicks was in custody took way too long, but the guy chose to plead guilty and signed official court documents denying any abuse. Has he changed his story, yet again?



Bobby

I've never been to GITMO.. But, neither have I been bombed outta of the Twin Towers... I guess I don't have enough perspective yet. Do you feel comfortable were you live? I'm not trying to twist anything! But based upon the links YOU'VE provided, I think I think that hick's had more to run from than to hide!

No where, NO WHERE, in anything I've read in these links, regarding this guy, did he say he knew that he put himself in harms way and admitted he engaged with people's opposed to the US and our endeavors. You concern yourself with how many times you brought this up...

American or un-American... Freedom wanting or not freedom wanting....

Again, I will ask: Who's side are you on?

Your point being??

All right, Skell, let's talk about David Hicks, shall we?

In 1999 David Hicks traveled to first to Kosovo to train with the KLA and then to Pakistan, where he learned guerrilla warfare from Lashkar-e-Toiba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Toiba), including weapons training (including landmines), kidnapping techniques, and assassination methods. Here is a picture of him during his training with the KLA. (He's the one holding the RPG.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/David_hicks_full_frame.jpg

In 2000, he traveled to Kashmir, where he fought against India for several months.

Later that year, Hicks attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), including an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the US and British embassies in Kabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul), Afghanistan. On one occasion when al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) founder Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) visited an Afghan camp, Hicks questioned bin Laden about the lack of English in training material and subsequently began to translate the training camp materials from Arabic to English.

After the September 11, 2000 attacks, Hicks returned to Afghanistan to rejoin his al-Qaeda associates to fight against US, British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan, and other coalition forces. He was captured by a "Northern Alliance warlord" on or about 9 December (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_9)2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001), near Kunduz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz), Afghanistan, and turned over to US Special Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces) for $1000 on 17 December (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_17)2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001).

We're not talking about some innocent young kid who just got caught up in events. He was an active terrorist, an active operator. IF he was tortured (and we only have HIS word for that), well, you make your bed, you lay in it. He chose to become a terrorist. Afghanistan wasn't an isolated case... he was a terrorist in Kosovo, India, and Pakistan before going to Afghanistan.

So, cry me a river over the torture and long confinement of David Hicks. The guy's a f#*&ingterrorist scumbag. He had no problems with torture, murder, assassination, attacking civillians etc. He trained for it. He CHOSE to learn and then use those methods of combat. You reap what you sow. He chose terrorism. I've got NO sympathy for the guy. If it were up to me, he'd still be at Gitmo, with his testicles wrapped in copper wire with the leads attached to a car battery. And when I was finished with him, his corpse would be put in an unmarked grave, and he'd be buried with the carcass of a pig.

My question to you, Skell, is why you have any sympathy at all fo a murdering terrorist scumbag like David Hicks. So he spent five years in Gitmo in a small room. Boo effing hoo. It's a hell of a lot better than what he had planned for his victims.



"He [Hicks] once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi.

Detainment and torture of a terrorist? Boo hoo. I don't give a crap. He did and wanted to do a lot worse than that to innocent people. Hicks was anything but an innocent victim.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I would have written this myself, but your home town paper beat me to it…… So, I borrowed.

How about another victim? Khaled el-Masri, an innocent German citizen of Lebanese descent who was kidnapped, detained and tortured in a secret overseas prison as part of the Bush administration's morally, physically and illegal anti-terrorism program.

Mr. Masri says he was picked up while vacationing in Macedonia in late 2003 and flown to a squalid prison in Afghanistan. He says he was questioned there about ties to terrorist groups and was beaten by his captors, some of whom were Americans. At the end of May 2004, Mr. Masri was released in a remote part of Albania without having been charged with a crime.

Investigations in Europe and news reports in this country have supported his version of events, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged privately to her that Mr. Masri's abduction was a mistake, an admission that aides to Ms. Rice have denied. The Masri case, in other words, is being actively discussed all over the world. The only place it cannot be discussed, it seems, is in a United States courtroom.

In refusing to consider Mr. Masri's appeal, the Supreme Court has left an innocent person without any remedy for his wrongful imprisonment and torture. It has damaged America's standing in the world and established the nation as Supreme Enabler of the Bush administration's efforts to avoid accountability for its actions. These are not accomplishments to be proud of.

excon

[QUOTE=ETWolverine]

My question to you...is why you have any sympathy at all fo a murdering terrorist scumbag like David Hicks. QUOTE]

Because that is the disease of the self-proclaimed "enlightened" crowd that's running around today. Sympathy for the criminal, disdain for the victims.

Look, why do we even have the penal code? Is it because everyone lives with everyone else in peace and harmony? No. The criminals dictate the laws these days. Our laws and what we laughingly call the judicial system are totally REACTIVE in nature instead of PROACTIVE, as is the whole mindset of the rule makers.

Someone shoots up a school, so they make laws banning guns within X number of meters of a school. Well, if that ain't just pure genius! Have they looked up the definition of a criminal? If so, have they paused to think about just how much of a rip a criminal gives about their little law?

REACTION investigates and once in a while prevents the same person from doing the same thing twice.

PROACTION looks for the source of the crime before it happens and seeks to prevent it from ever occurring in the first place. This does happen, but because of the very nature of proaction, most people never know it happens, never know how close they may have come to being snuffed out by someone who cares less about their lives than they do about stepping on a bug.

So how do we be proactive? We use our assets: intelligence, prior histories, informants, and yes, all the various means of interrogation. We get information, and we ACT on it.

Hopefully that made some degree of sense. I have a lousy cold or something, and my head's all full of crud.

EXCON
You missed the point of the Masri case . He was suing for compensation. SCOTUS could not let the precedent of every jihadi who thinks he has a claim bringing a tort case to the courts. Masri got screwed by the CIA and the $75K he asked for is fair .But SCOTUS is correct .They can't give jurisdiction to anyone around the world for lawsuits in American courts for actions outside the US, especially against agents that are defending our national security. The correct venue for this is in the State Dept. They should work out a deal.

You missed the point of the Masri case . He was suing for compensation.Hello again, tom:

Oh, I didn't miss anything. I think, perhaps, it's you who missed my point. But, let's address yours first. Do I think he should be compensated for the torture he endured having been INNOCENT and WRONGLY arrested?? Uhhhh, yeah!!

However, my point was that we scoop innocent people up and call them terrorists, without knowing a thing about them - and then we torture them.

My overall point, however, is that based upon nothing more than gossip, rumor and innuendo, we arrest people. I'm not suggesting that ALL the terrorists we've arrested are innocent. I'm suggesting that SOME are, as evidenced by the facts in this case.

Given the above, and taking the cowboy Wolverine's example again, it's a fantasy to believe that we would EVER KNOW that somebody KNEW something that we wanted to know. It's just not a possibility that I would entertain. Therefore, in my view, it's better to NOT torture hundreds of terrorists who know things, than to wrongly torture an innocent man who knows nothing.

excon

My overall point being, that based upon gossip, rumor and innuendo, we arrest people. Actually it was a case of mistaken identity . Macedonia identified him . SCOTUS decided without dissent that the State secrets doctrine trumped his claim and that he had no standing in a US Court. . Masri should sue Macedonia .

Therefore, in my view, it's better to NOT torture hundreds of terrorists who know things, than to wrongly torture an innocent man who knows nothing.


Then it's a good thing that you are not a member of the intelligence community or in any way charged with the protection of this country. You would simply be the wrong person for that job. I don't know that I would be the right guy for that job, but your reticense to do whatever it takes to do that job would make you a VERY bad choice.

I'm glad that there are those who ARE willing to do whatever it takes.

To paraphrase a statement I once heard on this subject, "G-d forbid if everyone was willing to do whatever it takes to obtain information in the war on terror, and G-d forbid if NOONE was willing to whatever it takes to otain information in the war on terror."

There's a line from one of my favorite movies that sort of puts your position in perspective. The movie is Heartbreak Ridge, (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros. 1986).

"Characters like you are an anachronism. You should be sealed in a case that says break glass only in the event of war."

I get that. People who really are willing to do ANYTHING to accomplish the mission, no matter how nasty, don't make for good houseguests.

But the war is already here. Time to break the glass and let the nasty guys out of the box to do their jobs.

Kipling also wrote about it in his poem Tommy.

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
People don't like the guys who do nasty stuff to protect them. Killing, torturing, blowing stuff up... it's all very nasty and not the type of thing you want to deal with in polite company. "Real Americans" don't do that stuff. We're better than that. And anyone who is willing to do that stuff is a bad person. But when the planes start crashing into buildings, we demand that the nasty guys in uniform Do Something About It. And when they do something about it, they get reamed out for being too nasty. Personally, I'd rather just say "thank you" and let them get on with their jobs.

Elliot

excon

I simply can't agree that it is the policy of our government to 'scoop up people without knowing anything about them and torture them. Mistakes may be made, but as I've asked you before…what is the alternative and you have not replied?

There are of course individuals who do not adhere to policies, that is, individuals who believe American values and traditions are so superior to especially mid-eastern values and traditions that people from that heratige have no rights at all. In fact a couple of our board meambers are of that inclination. It's a pity but we can't judge all Americans by that standard, nor should we judge mid-eastern by the standard of terrorist.
.

Isn't that how Gitmo got populated, by "scooping" whoever looked Middle Eastern and was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

From Wikipedia: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 have been released. (Why?) As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. More than a fifth have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. (They can't go home?) Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. (Why the delay for freeing the rest?)

So most of the detainees were illegally/incorrectly/unfairly incarcerated because they had been "scooped"?

People don't like the guys who do nasty stuff to protect them. Killing, torturing, blowing stuff up... it's all very nasty and not the type of thing you want to deal with in polite company. Hello again, El:

Thank you Jack Nicholson and Clint Eastwood. Didja see the line I gave DC? We don't agree, but I do like your honesty.

Have you ever considered giving up your day job at the bank? You'd look terrific in your aviator sunglasses hanging out of a helicopter armed to the teeth, with your yarmulke on. Do they hire Jewish guys?

excon

Isn't that how Gitmo got populated, by "scooping" whoever looked Middle Eastern and was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

from Wikipedia: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 have been released. (Why?) As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. More than a fifth have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. (They can't go home?) Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. (Why the delay for freeing the rest?)

So most of the detainees were illegally/incorrectly/unfairly incarcerated because they had been "scooped"?
And why can't the 420 who received justice go home?

what is the alternative and you have not replied? Hello again, DC:

What's the alternative to torture?? Your question assumes there IS an alternative. I don't make that assumption. I have not replied with an alternative, because there is none.

Your question NEEDS context - legal context. There is no law that allows us to "scoop" people up and "render" them to somewhere else. In fact, in all of civilization, that's called kidnapping. If you want to arrest someone for being a combatant, then there are laws, conventions and treaties for doing just that. If you wan’t to arrest someone for criminal acts, then there are laws and treaties for doing just that.

So, if you're going to be a cowboy in the world, and to hell with laws and treaties (which is exactly how we've acted), then torture away and who cares what I (or the world) say's about the law on the matter.

If you're looking for justification in the law for torture, you're not going to find it - unless you've got an attorney general who changes what the word torture means. Bush HAD one of those.

Back to your assumption that we need to torture because there isn't an alternative...

Having been in combat, I know that the average grunt doesn't know anything. MY assumption would bethat these grunts we pick up today don't know squat either.

You apparently DO think they know something, and would torture them to find out... Shame on you.

excon

Have you ever considered giving up your day job at the bank? You'd look terrific in your aviator sunglasses hanging out of a helicopter armed to the teeth, with your yarmulke on. Do they hire Jewish guys?
excon

Yeah, but most of them are former IDF special forces guys. A typical Jewish guy from Brooklyn? Not so much.

Nah, I'd be much better at analyzing information and making strategic and tactical suggestions than in the field as an operative. I'm too effing old, my body is too broken up from 25+ years of martial arts training, and I can't run worth a damn. But give me data and a computer, and I can cross-reference it 6 ways from Sunday and spit out an analysis of it.

I did my time in uniform. That's a game for a much younger and fitter man than me.

Elliot

Isn't that how Gitmo got populated, by "scooping" whoever looked Middle Eastern and was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Uh... no. Despite how the media would like to portray us, WG, the fact is that we do not simply "scoop up" Middle Easterners who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The guys we have caught have been caught in the field, weapons in hand. They aren't the innocent civilians you think they are.


from Wikipedia: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 have been released. (Why?)

Because of pressure from left-wing political leaders and organizations. That's why.


As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. More than a fifth have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers.(They can't go home?)


Apparently not. It seems that they are wanted criminals in their own homelads as well. Something about committing terrorist acts...



Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.(Why the delay for freeing the rest?)


Where do we send them? As mentioned above, their own countries don't want them back, because they are career terrorists. WE sure don't want them.


So most of the detainees were illegally/incorrectly/unfairly incarcerated because they had been "scooped"?

Again, no. They were correctly, legally, fairly captured and incarcerated during the commission of terorist acts or while fighting against soldiers. They are being freed only because of political pressure from the left.

The one thing that your Wikipedia article doesn't mention or ask about is how many of the 420 that have already been released have gone back to terrorist activities? How many former detainees have been found to be operating with al Qaeda or the Taliban some other terrorist organization? How many have been caught multiple times? How many dead enemies in Iraq or Afghanistan have been positively identified as former Gitmo detainees? Wouldn't that be an interesting statistic to find out about? How many of the "unfairly" and "incorrectly" incarcerated Gitmo detainees were really "unfair and incorrect" and how many are now back to their old Jihadist games?

Elliot

excon

Seems pretty simple to me, the alternative is to not torture them, is that so difficult. Of course the alternative to not detaining the enemy on a battlefield is to let them shoot you…or would you just have the marines take their weapons and let them go.

Just what would you have us do with suspected terrorist? Since you were a grunt you tell me how the war ought to be fought.

Dennis, good point. That's how you fight a war.

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"

---Sean Connery as Jim Malone in The Untouchables, 1987, Paramount Pictures

Or from the same movie:

"I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!"

---Robert DeNiro as Al Capone.

I love these threads. Makes me glad I'm a long way away from where you cowboys are!

Elliot, you're an intelligent man. No doubt. But wow have you shown some colors here that are ugly and what most of the world finds sickening about people of your kind. How does one so intelligent become so blinded?? That fear mongering campaign in your country really is working isn't it. Its got hold of you and even has you spruiking it to the world.

I don't want compassion or sympathy for David Hicks. He trained with terrorists and he deserved to be punished. That was not my argument.

The point I was trying, and have tried to make in the past, was to display the USA's complete disrespect of justice and basic human rights. Torture is just another example.
Oh so you'll cry that the terrorists show no respect for human life or justice either so its OK for us to do it. Next you'll be telling me that because terrorists murder innocent women and children that its OK for us to do it too. Oops, that's right. You already do!!

Once again you twisted a point being made that you didn't like into silliness by twisting it to suit your own argument. You should become a politician.

Oh and please do the original author the courtesy of citing him when you use his / her material. What website did you copy and paste that spiel on Hicks from? Or was it off the top of your head?

skell

Whoooo, that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there. As much as I agree with what you say…if in fact the cowboys were serious you are referring to.

But you are dead wrong about America as a whole. While there has been plenty of injustice served out over the years there has also been plenty of justice served back on the perpetrators of those injustices, and by other Americans.

What America exports is Capitalism and all of the value associated with capitalism ---that is, a new culture introduced, encouraged, and rewarded by global capitalism. What are the values of this capitalist culture… the uniquely American ethics of individualism and liberty?

Skell,

I find it amazing that you can say the things you do about the USA. America is the most free, most generous country in the history of the world, but YOU think that we are a bunch of imperialist war-mongers and torturers and baby killers.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.

War has a different set of rules than peacetime. War requires different actions than simply fighting crime. If we tortured criminals, yes, that would be wrong. But these aren't criminals, they are enemy combatants. And no, they don't have the same rights as criminals. Even if we stick to the Geneva Conventions (which is ludicrous because no other country in the world does... it is a contract more honored in its breaking than its compliance) the GC itself states that enemy combatants cannot and should not be treated as criminals. Do you deny this basic premise of law? Enemy POWs are NOT criminals and cannot be treated as criminals.

But it goes a step further. The terrorists deliberately break the rules of war set down by the GC. They don't wear uniforms, they do not open carry their weapons, they attack civilian targets, they engage in war crimes, and they commit acts of torture... REAL torture. Ergo, they do not deserve or have the right to any protections under the law. NONE!!

But as I said, we are the most generous and most free nation in the world. So despite the fact that the terrorists deserve no protections under the law, they get them anyway. They get three hallal meals a day, they get religious items for worship, they get soccer fields, they get excersize equipment, they get bed and pillows and blankets, they are treated with basic respect and human dignity. If it were up to me, I'd kneecap every one of them. Even after they heal, they'd be walking with a painful limp for the rest of their lives. But Americans are generally good people, so they get treated pretty well for enemies who want to destroy us. That is how MOST of them get treated.

But a few have information on the next attack or the locations of major terrorist leaders, or operating procedures of the terrorist cells, or methods of contacting hidden cells. We need that information in order to keep the United Stated the most free and most generous nation in the world. They don't want to give us that information.

What would you do? Ask "pretty please" a few more times?

That's a great way to fight a war, Skell.

The part that you refuse to understand, Skell, is that this enemy wants to destroy you and your entire family and your entire way of life. This really is a fight to the death. Either Islamofascism will be beaten into submission, or Democracy will be. And if we lose, all that freedom and generosity will DISAPPEAR. It will cease to exist. Your hatred of torture won't matter then, because you won't even be able to protest against it. No freedom of speech. Your wife, your sister, your daughters can all be gang-raped summarily for any actions you take or words you speak against the regime. You can be tortured to death for saying that you are against the government torturing anyone. What will you do then?

I'm not saying that because the enemy does it that makes it okay for us to do it. I'm saying that we are in a war, and in a war you can't be a nice guy and still win the war. And we MUST win this war. There is no choice. I'm saying that we aren't torturing the enemy because we want to, or out of some sort of vengeance for them doing it to our guys. I'm saying we are doing it because we don't have a choice in the matter. There is no other way to win the war and protect the USA. And if we lose, we lose EVERYTHING.

As for the stuff about Hicks, I got it from several sources: old news articles, books written about him by other Gitmo inmates, various websites, etc. There is no one source. There are quite a few of them. The picture of Hicks with the RPG is from Wikipedia. Why? Do you dispute the facts I laid out about Hicks?

So here is my suggestion to you, Skell. If the stuff about torture bothers you, look away. Don't interfere. Because your interference gives aid and comfort to the enemy. And if that enemy wins, the torture of a few nasty POWs will be the least of your problems. Let the people with the stomach to fight the war get on with their jobs, and just say thank you at night before going to bed that there are such people around to allow you to go to bed in safety.

Elliot

Well, that's a mighty big assumption being made by a non-expert in the field of torture and interrogation. Or do you have some background in intelligence gathering that you haven't informed us about? How do you know it doesn't produce better intelligence? What is your basis for that claim? Did you just happen to hear it somewhere, or do you have clinical evidence to back it up.
I don't have any personal experience or expertise in intelligence gathering, but I have enough understanding of human behavior to believe that folks like these, who do have experience, are telling the truth about what works.

When I was in the officer's basic course, one of the instructors, only half-jokingly, proclaimed, "Beatings and drugs are for fun, not for information." His point was you can get anyone to say anything you want through torture. Good information came from psychology, interpersonal skills, and long hours with your prisoner. The best interrogators I've worked with tended to be very good at reading people and very good at using their understanding of the person and their culture to get them to talk -- no waterboarding required.. . Army Capt. Kyle Teamey, a current military intelligence officer


We ex-POWs don't look kindly on sadistic behavior, especially when it degenerates into torture. Kyle is right, it doesn't do much to get useful info, it only gives the sadist some thrills. Retired Air Force Col. Robert Certain, who was held as a prisoner of war after being shot down over North Vietnam

I have yet to speak with an experienced, successful interrogator who advocates mistreating their subjects. As personally satisfying as it may seem to beat the hell out of detainees, it doesn't usually get you what you want -- accurate, reliable information that you can trust and upon which you can act.

In Vietnam the Provincial Interrogation Centers routinely used skilled Vietnamese interrogators to obtain accurate, detailed information on the organization, personnel and structure of the Vietnamese Communist Infrastructure -- exactly the type of information Guantanamo should be producing by the pound on radical Islamic terrorism.

I think we make a major strategic error when we support such would-be macho men as we see in this administration showing their supposed toughness by advocating torture, when we know it doesn't work. Retired Army Lt. Col. Terry Daly, a veteran of military intelligence operations in the Vietnam War

Does Torture work? --Tom Ricks's Inbox (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201885_pf.html)

Not sure what the circumstances might be but I'm fairly sure I would approve of torture in some case. But it would be sheer folly to legalize it.

Hello again:

Those, whose standards are malleable, don't understand what a standard is.

excon

Here's what's dangerous about absolutism: Absolutism causes people to act more drastically than they would otherwise, sometimes much more, as in suicide bombing.

Ordinaryguy,

Yes, I'm sure they are ineffective. That is why officers are trained to resist torture... because it's so ineffective. That's why special forces guys are trained to resist it... because it doesn't work.

I suggest you ask Kindj, a former Navy SEAL, who has been through BUD/S and SERE training, whether torture works or not. He's been there, done that, got the trident. Unlike you or me he has actually survived torture. Ask him whether it works.

Elliot

Hello again, Mr. Wolverine:

Why doncha ask me? I don't suggest that I've been “tortured”, but I have a story to relate. It involves less than stellar treatment by our men in uniform. As a Yid, you should relate.

In my profile, you'll see mention of my having been in a military prison. Actually, it was the brig on the Naval Base in Charleston, S.C. I was there for three days piss and punk (bread and water) for almost shooting my severely anti-Semitic chief petty officer between the eyes. I had him scoped out too, but that's another story.

So, there I was, in the brig. The Naval brig is run by Marines. Not five minutes after I landed there, I was confronted by two big guys who wanted to know if I was a Christian, all the while standing an inch from my face, spit flying away. No, I said, standing at attention, shaking a little bit. (Sorry, this isn't a hero story.)

They reached out and thumped me on the head and asked again. No, I said, and they thumped me again. I'm talking about a shot with straight fingers aimed on your forehead. It hurt. Now they started thumping me in the chest too, and that also hurt. I could see that they started to enjoy it. They spread the word to every Marine on every shift. They never asked what I was. They just wanted to know if I was a Christian. I was physically abused for three continuous days. (I could call it torture, but it would dishonor those who truly HAVE been tortured.)

It continued on, even though on day two, I told them that I was a Christian, just hoping they'd stop. They didn't.

Take what you will from this story. I was 18. I wish they'd try it now.

Interestingly enough, Hamden (or one of 'em) was kept at that very same brig, where they say they don't torture. Riiiiight.

excon

Hey, Excon,

Sorry to hear that story. I'm not going to deny that abuse takes place in prison and even in military brigs. Again, I'll take it as a given.

But I'll bet if you had information that those Marines wanted, REAL information, you would have been spilling your guts after those three days, right? Who wouldn't? And that's without any waterboarding or shock treatment or truth-drugs.

Furthermore, real torture for an interrogation is methodical, designed to break the captive without giving him the ability to make up a story. He is kept completely off balance and unable to think of a falsehood or a "story", and eventually he breaks and gives up REAL information. It's a bit different from the abuse you suffered. They gave you time to make up a story, a lie that you hoped would end the abuse. In a real torture scenario, the subject isn't given that opportunity. Dennis could give you a bit more information than I can, since he's been through it and I haven't. I only know the technique as a theory I learned from books, he knows it from experience.

The botom line is that torture DOES work. It can break the subject very well. It broke YOUR will to resist, and it would have broken mine as well, and I suspect more quickly... you are a bigger guy than I am. There's certainly no shame in that. But to say that torture doesn't really work is not true. It clearly does.

Elliot

The botom line is that torture DOES work. It can break the subject very well.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "work". If the purpose is to "break the subject", as you call it, then I'm sure it works, as you say, "very well". If the purpose is to get "accurate, reliable information that you can trust and upon which you can act", then no, it doesn't.

They gave you time to make up a story, a lie that you hoped would end the abuse. In a real torture scenario, the subject isn't given that opportunity.
So there are torture techniques that can prevent the subject from thinking of a lie, no matter how desperate he is to make it stop? Even when the subject knows that what the torturer wants to hear isn't the truth? The torturer will always get the answer he wants, whether it's the truth or not.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "work". If the purpose is to "break the subject", as you call it, then I'm sure it works, as you say, "very well".

Indeedy it do.

If the purpose is to get "accurate, reliable information that you can trust and upon which you can act", then no, it doesn't.

Oh, but it does. Without actually giving away techniques, just think about it for a sec: What's the first step in getting someone to give up something they don't want to give up? Do you think they'll do it if they're nice, warm, and comfy, with a full belly and feeling good?

So there are torture techniques that can prevent the subject from thinking of a lie, no matter how desperate he is to make it stop?

Eventually, yes.

Even when the subject knows that what the torturer wants to hear isn't the truth? The torturer will always get the answer he wants, whether it's the truth or not.

That's true for an untrained goon. But an experienced, knowledgable interrogator will get the truth in time.


Had to edit, sorry. I can't quite get the hang of this whole quote thing.

That's true for an untrained goon. But an experienced, knowledgable interrogator will get the truth in time.


Had to edit, sorry. I can't quite get the hang of this whole quote thing.
I agree, and often the one being interrogated was not even aware that they had given it up. The matter is not in the answer of only one question, but rather the piecing together the answer to hundreds of questions.

Top Interrogators Declare Torture Ineffective in Intelligence Gathering (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2008/alert/313/index.htm)

Just this weekend the NY Slimes outed a CIA interrogator. (but that is a different subject) . This CIA guy played the good cop roll in the game of coercive interrogations and stroking the terrorist. Yeah he spilled his guts to this guy ;but the other interrogators laid the groundwork.


A paramilitary team put on the pressure, using cold temperatures, sleeplessness, pain and fear to force a prisoner to talk. When the prisoner signaled assent, the tormenters stepped aside. After a break that could be a day or even longer, Mr. Martinez or another interrogator took up the questioning.
Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation - Series - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?_r=4&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1214431373-c/jpQDZm/o5dAxZzIq1zmQ)