| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Will They Ever Learn? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 3 2005, 09:15 PM (976 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Nov 4 2005, 07:37 PM Post #51 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No need to take my word for it. Nor will you find any scientific studies that deal with real torture because torturers and those who encourage them like Saddam Hussein and George Bush always do it in the dark, never allow anyone to see it, nor even admit it. Indeed, your example about Kalid Sheik Mohammed is itself questioinable, since there is no evidence that he was tortured. All we know is that he gave the information under interrogation. Do you know what technique was actually used? So, since I certainly am not an expert, you are not one and there is no way to have any scientific evidence, let's go to those who actually do interrogation and here what they have to say. How about John Rothrock who headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. He says that more than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. Your scenario, Jeffrey. He admits that what was done in such cases was not nice, but he also says they never physically abused prisoners. Rothrock says he used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. As an example, he says he once let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. He says there were those in the military who wanted him to move faster and use torture, but as he puts it: "If I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," and it likely will not be accurate. It will only be what you want to hear. Rothrock also says that he doesn't know any professional intelligence officers of his generation who thinks torture is a good idea or even effective. Or, perhaps we should listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington who is a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Herrington says that not only is torture immoral and illegal, it is simply not a good way to get information. He claims that in his experience, 9 out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no stress methods at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the average might be lower: perhaps 6 out of 10 is his estimate. Herrington has also warned about the side effects, not the least of which is that the enemy will reciprocate and torture our soldiers when they are captured. Plus, he says, it destroys the US's image and undermines any possibility of gaining the support of those we hope will be on our side when all the fighting dies down. There is no reason to listen to me as to the effectiveness of torture, because I have never engaged in interrogation in wartime. I come at it from the standpoint that it is immoral and against all values that the United States stands for. As an American, I find the practice abominable. But your opinion is just as lacking in credibility as mine, Jeffrey because you have never done it either. But you asked for examples of getting information without torture. Here are two guys, both of whom have actually done interrogating, and they have gotten the information without torture. They oppose it, not only on moral grounds, but on practical grounds as well. Argue with them if you want, Jeffrey. But I'll put my stock in them. They have done it. They know what they speak of. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 4 2005, 08:26 PM Post #52 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
The people in the CIA are smart enough to understand that and employ these sorts of tactics as a matter of course and shun the "bunsen burner to the genitals" tactics for precisely the reason stated here. However, even these tactics are pulled in under the rubric of "torture" by those who seek nothing more than to discredit the entire effort against Islamo-fascism. I seem to recall when a (apocryphal) story about flushing a Koran down the toilet was making its media rounds the hand wringing was as intense as if they had clamped the jumper cables onto his balls. I am certain that even making sure that the dear little lambs get enough milk with their cookies and their mommies can tuck them in at night will not be enough to stay the casual use of the "T" word. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Nov 4 2005, 09:17 PM Post #53 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Actually, jbryan, if this country simply adheres to the Geneva Convention, aggressive interrogation tactics are acceptable in times of war and acute danger -- but not torture. Of course, the Bush regime claims these people are not subject to the protection of the Geneva Convention. This way they can continue to torture them in what apparently is an expanding Gulag system, stretching from Guantanomo to Saddam's prisons of torture in Baghdad to the torture chambers and prisons of the former Soviet Union. There is legislation in the Congress to make sure that all held in custody of the United States cannot be tortured. It is sponsored by John McCain, who knows a little something about being in a prison run by our enemies and what torture really is and what it can do. Of course, the Bush regime has sent Dick Cheney to do all he can to defeat this legislation and Cheney has said that Bush is likely to veto it. These are American values? To oppose a simple law that says we will not torture people? As I've said a few times in this thread -- what the hell is going on? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 4 2005, 09:32 PM Post #54 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
No, actually the position of the Bush Administration is that these people are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention but they will be treated in a manner consistent with them. That would not include torture.
The legislation to which you refer would require that all prisoners be treated in accordance with the Army Handbook for detainees. The Bush Administration opposes it because it is an infringement on executive power and it puts certainty into the minds of detainees on the limits of their treatment. We do not want them to be so certain in order to facilitate those same interrogation methods you seem to be in support of. Since it is the policy of the Bush Administration to adhere to the Geneva Convention with respect to humane treatment to detainees and to not torture them then grandstanding Congressional meddling by John McCain et al is unnecessary and actually counter-productive. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Nov 4 2005, 09:34 PM Post #55 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
At some point, jbryan, even you are going to become embarrassed and appalled enough by what Bush is doing to America to stop being an apologist for him and all his cronies. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 5 2005, 03:55 AM Post #56 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Whoops, you made an assumption. Even assuming he is who you say he is, you've provided absolutely no evidence, as you posited, that he could give details of al-Qaeda attacks in the planning stage. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 05:40 AM Post #57 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt - You're dodging. This is like saying that you've captured Goering, but you can't prove that he has knowledge of Nazi military plans. Really, Quirt. Enforced ignorance is not attractive. KSM was the operations officer of AQ, until we captured and tortured him for information. Again, be practical and solution-oriented in your non-torture advice. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 05:55 AM Post #58 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Rick - Of course intense overwhelming pain can cause people to say anything. This has been known since the Spanish Inquisition. You would do well to study the actual CIA training manuals (available on the web and elsewhere) on the actual coercive interrogation techniques recommended. They are detailed, based on lots of experimental psychological data, and quite effective. For example, a bunsen burner to the genitals will result in meaningless output. However, weeks of sleep deprivation accompanied by freezing cold and loud noise, forced standing at attention, solitary confinement except for hostile interrogation etc., can cause a weakening of the personality an alteration of a previously strongly held belief system, and the betrayal of former comrades. This is a proven fact. All claims to the contrary that "torture doesn't work" are an attempt to dodge the real moral issue involved - namely coercion applied to another human being to get them to do what we want. Note: if the bunsen burner would in fact result in truthful information, than I believe it would be justified against Al Quaida members. In fact, such action would be not merely justified, but morally obligatory. It would be immoral not to use such methods. It is only a matter of practicality and results. Being a member of Al Quaida removes one's human right to bodily and mental integrity. Obviously, I favor only those torture methods of coercion that actually work in getting real information. Usually interrogators know some of the information, they are seeking and have multiple ways to check for accuracy. They are not as dumb as some of the people here who claim that "torture doesn't work". We know it works, because of all the many documented cases of torture working. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 5 2005, 05:56 AM Post #59 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I doubt it. Jbryan *get's it*. Like the rest of us who get it, he understands the dangers this country faces, the absolute lunacy of doing things the way your side would do them, and the bigger picture of what is being done to make sure there even *is* an America in the future. I believe that even if the president was a yellow dog democrat, Jbryan would support the current efforts to protect our nation. I also believe that if the president was a yellow dog democrat you'd switch your tune, because where I see JB as standing on principle and intelligent thought, I see you as standing purely on your ideology. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 5 2005, 06:21 AM Post #60 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You want practical and solution-oriented? There are plenty of psychotropic drugs available that can get someone to talk against their will, without torturing them. Use those. Hook him up to a lie detector afterwards, to make sure you've gotten the truth. There. Practical and solution-oriented in my non-torture advice. You are free to return to your rack and thumbscrews now. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 07:03 AM Post #61 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt - Um, injecting someone with mind-altering drugs against their will (combined perhaps with sleeplessness and loud noise) IS itself a torture technique . So it turns out you are not against torture either, just ineffective torture (like rack and thumbscrews). I also am against ineffective torture, as is the CIA and Shin Bet, I just don't play word games with myself that injecting someone with dangerous drugs against their will isn't torture. If playing word games makes you feel better, go for it. But you just (properly) endorsed a torture technique to get information that saves lives. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 5 2005, 07:09 AM Post #62 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Yes, sleeplessness and loud noise are defined as torture techniques. However, torture is generally defined as something painful or uncomfortable. Here's the dictionary definition: tor·ture Audio pronunciation of "torture" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr) n. 1. 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. 2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish. I don't think that causing someone to tell the truth by means of painless psychotropic drugs constitutes torture. Is that the same definition that others may use? Perhaps not. It is, however, the dictionary definition. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 5 2005, 07:20 AM Post #63 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Psychotropic drugs by themselves have never been all that effective. Combined with other techniques they have some utilty. Intelligence agencies long ago gave up on the idea of a "truth serum". |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 09:08 AM Post #64 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt - "2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense." So by this definition even mental tricks like lying to them that we have captured their comrades (which would cause them extreme mental pain) or not telling them what would happen if they don't confess, would be torture. Perhaps we should make sure their beds are comfy with a nightlight as well. Again, by being willing to inject them involuntarily with drugs (which are, as JB said, only slightly effective) you already condone torture, you just like deceiving yourself that it is something different. I think all methods are legitimate, if they work - debating the real meaning of the Koran, drugs, sleeplessness, or extreme physical pain, depending on what works with the particular individual. Our moral obligations are to the innocent victims of terrorism, not to the terrorists. They have forfeited their rights to bodily integrity by their actions. You think drugs are ok, but sleeplessness and pain are not. Please state what methods are ok, what methods are not ok, and what your moral principle of demarcation is. You have already crossed the line (and rightly so) by allowing drug use. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 5 2005, 09:36 AM Post #65 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I like deceiving myself that words have meaning, and that I can look to the dictionary to find the meaning of those words. It's quite a conceit. Since the dictionary doesn't call painless psychotropic drugs torture, I don't either. And really, if you have a different definition of the word "torture", it hardly matters to me, unless your name is Webster or Funk & Wagnalls. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 5 2005, 09:37 AM Post #66 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Except that you haven't proven their actions. You're willing to torture suspected terrorists. And for that, you will answer to a higher authority than me. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Nov 5 2005, 09:43 AM Post #67 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Jeffery, while I don't necessarily disagree with you on this issue, your argument is beginning to sound an awful lot like, "Beat, beat and beat again until you extract a confession" . I trust you are aware of who said that in relation to a concocted "Doctor's Plot". Google it if you don't. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 5 2005, 11:04 AM Post #68 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't think Jeff is particularly concerned about answering to a "higher authority" classically defined. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 01:35 PM Post #69 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt: "Except that you haven't proven their actions. You're willing to torture suspected terrorists. And for that, you will answer to a higher authority than me." No, I just don't think we have to have a jury trial to know that someone is a terrorist and take action. OJ really was guilty, and we know this, even though a jury thought otherwise. Since using coercion to extract information is morally obligatory, not just permissible, in the case of a member of Al Quaida or similar group intending mass murder, I can equally say that those who shirk their obligation to support torture also must answer to whatever judge of moral correctness may happen to exist. You must answer for the innocent people who will die, if you hamstring the CIA in their interrogation techniques. At any rate, you allow involuntary drugging to get information. This only works sometimes. What else, if anything, do you permit? Again, pease be specific and solution-oriented. AC - I've already said many times that extreme pain (e.g. rack and screws) results in invalid information, as the Inquisition showed. The techniques actually used include sleeplessness, threats, standing at attention, hunger, isolation, mental tricks and lies, humiliation etc. These techniques will break almost anyone in time. They are properly called torture, and they work almost every time. |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Nov 5 2005, 02:00 PM Post #70 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No they are called effective interrogation techniques. Still the tone of words you employ in this topic imply and conjure the notorious quote attributed to Stalin- "Beat, beat and beat again...." |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 02:08 PM Post #71 |
|
Senior Carp
|
AC - Enforced sleeplessness, with cold and screeching loud noises for days on end. is a violation of the Geneva Convention. I don't recall the exact passages, but I suspect that involuntary drug use that changes the will and desire is also a violation of the GC. This does not mean that they are wrong, but they are properly called "torture" and they are exactly the needed techniques of interrogation that people want to take away from the CIA, by citing the GC and other "human rights" stuff. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Nov 5 2005, 02:13 PM Post #72 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Here is the UN charter on torture: "Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, ... Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, ... Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, Have agreed as follows: Part I Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, torture means 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." And here is the Wikipedia article on Torture (first paragraph): "Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain or grief as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent, revenge or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (enemy civilians and POWs) in armed conflicts, and signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on anyone, to obtain information or a confession, to punish them, or to coerce them or a third person. These conventions and agreements notwithstanding, it is estimated by organisations such as Amnesty International that around 2/3 of countries do not consistently abide by the spirit of such treaties." Sleep deprivation, drugging, and loud noises intended to disturb over long periods of time, are clearly regarded by Wikipedia as torture methods (in the passages that follow the one I quoted - look it up), and they clearly fall under the UN and Geneva definitions of torture. |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Nov 5 2005, 02:21 PM Post #73 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I have no doubt that any and all these techinques are banned under a host of international treaties and laws. So is terrorism. So is war of aggression. So are ethnic cleansing and genocide. Does every nation agree what constitutes any of these? No. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 5 2005, 02:33 PM Post #74 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Moreover, the sources you cited refer back to severe pain and suffering. While I do believe that the Geneva Conventions might be stretched to apply to drugging, the wikipedia definition clearly does not include painless involuntary extraction of information. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Nov 5 2005, 02:33 PM Post #75 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I love wikipedia.![]() x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










6:29 AM Jul 11