Ask Me Help Desk

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

Skell agrees: Do you really think we will b e free from a world with terror once this war is over? Hahaha! good one!

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.