ConcreteBoard

This is a fact.  The U.S. government tortures.  Don't get it twisted. 

from NYTimes.com

QuoteChina Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base atGuantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Some methods were used against a small number of prisoners at Guantánamo before 2005, when Congress banned the use of coercion by the military. The C.I.A. is still authorized by President Bush to use a number of secret "alternative" interrogation methods.

Several Guantánamo documents, including the chart outlining coercive methods, were made public at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing June 17 that examined how such tactics came to be employed.

But committee investigators were not aware of the chart's source in the half-century-old journal article, a connection pointed out to The New York Times by an independent expert on interrogation who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War" and written by Alfred D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.

Those orchestrated confessions led to allegations that the American prisoners had been "brainwashed," and provoked the military to revamp its training to give some military personnel a taste of the enemies' harsh methods to inoculate them against quick capitulation if captured.

In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after reviewing the 1957 article that "every American would be shocked" by the origin of the training document.

"What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions," Mr. Levin said. "People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don't need false intelligence."

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col Patrick Ryder, said he could not comment on the Guantánamo training chart. "I can't speculate on previous decisions that may have been made prior to current D.O.D. policy on interrogations," Colonel Ryder said. "I can tell you that current D.O.D. policy is clear — we treat all detainees humanely."

Mr. Biderman's 1957 article described "one form of torture" used by the Chinese as forcing American prisoners to stand "for exceedingly long periods," sometimes in conditions of "extreme cold." Such passive methods, he wrote, were more common than outright physical violence. Prolonged standing and exposure to cold have both been used by American military and C.I.A. interrogators against terrorist suspects.

The chart also listed other techniques used by the Chinese, including "Semi-Starvation," "Exploitation of Wounds," and "Filthy, Infested Surroundings," and with their effects: "Makes Victim Dependent on Interrogator," "Weakens Mental and Physical Ability to Resist," and "Reduces Prisoner to 'Animal Level' Concerns."

The only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: "Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance."

The documents released last month include an e-mail message from two SERE trainers reporting on a trip to Guantánamo from Dec. 29, 2002, to Jan. 4, 2003. Their purpose, the message said, was to present to interrogators "the theory and application of the physical pressures utilized during our training."

The sessions included "an in-depth class on Biderman's Principles," the message said, referring to the chart from Mr. Biderman's 1957 article. Versions of the same chart, often identified as "Biderman's Chart of Coercion," have circulated on anti-cult sites on the Web, where the methods are used to describe how cults control their members.

Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist who also studied the returning prisoners of war and wrote an accompanying article in the same 1957 issue of The Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, said in an interview that he was disturbed to learn that the Chinese methods had been recycled and taught at Guantánamo.

"It saddens me," said Dr. Lifton, who wrote a 1961 book on what the Chinese called "thought reform" and became known in popular American parlance as brainwashing. He called the use of the Chinese techniques by American interrogators at Guantánamo a "180-degree turn."

The harshest known interrogation at Guantánamo was that of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a member of Al Qaeda suspected of being the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Qahtani's interrogation involved sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold and other methods also used by the Chinese.

Terror charges against Mr. Qahtani were dropped unexpectedly in May. Officials said the charges could be reinstated later and declined to say whether the decision was influenced by concern about Mr. Qahtani's treatment.

Mr. Bush has defended the interrogation methods, saying they helped provide critical intelligence and prevented new terrorist attacks. But the issue continues to complicate the long-delayed prosecutions now proceeding at Guantánamo.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Qaeda member accused of playing a major role in the bombing of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000, was charged with murder and other crimes on Monday. In previous hearings, Mr. Nashiri, who was subjected to waterboarding, has said he confessed to participating in the bombing falsely only because he was tortured.

The rest of the world has known it for a long time, but now even U.S. citizens have to face the truth:  our ideals are beshteinted, our leaders are terrorists themselves, we are becoming our own worst nightmare. 

The evidence is overwhelming.  We torture. 

Yay America.

This is news?  We're Eagles fans.  We know from torture.

if they weren't terrorists, they are now. 

America... farg yeah!

I like to drink Scotch.

I like to waterboard

That's kinda like surfing, right?

Kind of, but with more pee in the water

Speaking of Guantanamo on this past Easter Sunday there was a suicide dumptruck bomb on a COP here in Mosul.  The blast was approximately 13 kilometers from where I was from, it sounded like it went off in our motorpool.  Guess where the driver of that truck was released from just a few months prior? It killed 13 IA and x4 wounded. 

So, the moral of the story:

Don't bother torturing them.  Release the innocent, and kill the guilty.

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 08:49:08 AM
So, the moral of the story:

Don't bother torturing them.  Release the innocent, and  kill them all the guilty.

Quote from: Cerevant on July 02, 2008, 09:03:16 AM

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 08:49:08 AM
So, the moral of the story:

Don't bother torturing them.  Release the innocent, and  kill them all the guilty.

i like your line of thinking

Good plan.  Let God/Allah/Yahweh sort them out.

Anyway, I don't think anyone on this board was denying torture.  Some of us just wonder if the people being tortured might kind of deserve it instead of instantly assuming it's the Bush regime attacking innocents.

That is the problem. The idea that someone 'deserves' torture is a new one to the American way of thinking. In our former life as universal good guy, we were the country that stood up to nations and governments who resorted to these kinds of activities. We took part in wars and had enemies but always at least attempted to take the moral high ground. Even the pretense of morality is gone now. One of a slew of reasons that we have lost our standing in the world.

McCain was tortured for months, so don't expect any sympathy from him if he's elected.

Tit for tat isn't a game that governments should be playing. They should be bigger than that. They aren't, but they should be.

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 09:47:14 AM
Some of us just wonder if the people being tortured might kind of deserve it

ha...beautiful

Aren't human rights violations one of the reasons we self-righteously justify unilateral military action against the bad guys?

I thought it was more about them taking some planes and flying them into our buildings.  But either way, sure.

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 02, 2008, 10:55:42 AM

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 09:47:14 AM
Some of us just wonder if the people being tortured might kind of deserve it

ha...beautiful

So, if these guys had something to do with planning terrorist activities against the U.S., you think they deserve any less than waterboarding or rectal pears?

Quite frankly, torture is probably too kind for the guilty.

Whatever - I'll let you touchy feely hippies debate this.  I just wanted to say that I fully believe they are torturing suspects in Gitmo, and I've never denied it as far as I know.

do support americans getting tortured for planning and carrying out attacks on middle eastern soil if they get captured?

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 02, 2008, 12:48:42 PM
do support americans getting tortured for planning and carrying out attacks on middle eastern soil if they get captured?

I know what you're trying to do, and I'm not getting involved with it.

Heads getting lopped off is ok, waterboarding bad...got it

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 11:42:26 AM
I thought it was more about them taking some planes and flying them into our buildings.  But either way, sure.

That's the funny thing - the people who were behind those planes are still running around in Afghanistan & Pakistan while American troops and innocent civilians are dying in Iraq.

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 02, 2008, 01:18:11 PM
Heads getting lopped off is ok, waterboarding bad...got it

Neither is ok.  That's the whole point.

Quote from: Cerevant on July 02, 2008, 01:21:23 PM

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 11:42:26 AM
I thought it was more about them taking some planes and flying them into our buildings.  But either way, sure.

That's the funny thing - the people who were behind those planes are still running around in Afghanistan & Pakistan while American troops and innocent civilians are dying in Iraq.

I couldn't agree more.  Iraq has never been about the "war on terror," and Bush has neglected the real war in favor of the Saddam vendetta and oil-mongering.  It's nice that Saddam is done, but that was a long time ago.  Apparently, Bush is just realizing this now and is trying to shift troops before he leaves office.

i cant imagine too many of our soldiers would be for the torture of anyone because one day they may be in a captive situation and facing some electric shock therapy themselves and im pretty sure wed all want them to be treated humanely...gotta love these armchair tough guys like ff screaming torture em all...and in general you gotta be a pretty sick person to actually want another human being tortured

Quote from: rjs246 on July 02, 2008, 01:22:08 PM

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 02, 2008, 01:18:11 PM
Heads getting lopped off is ok, waterboarding bad...got it

Neither is ok.  That's the whole point.

true...but torture is much worse than quick death

Definitely im on board with that too IGY, but then sending the video of your head being lopped off so the world and your family isnt exactly PC.  The world is a farged up place, and just because one group follows the rules doesnt mean the other will in any capacity

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 11:42:26 AM
I thought it was more about them taking some planes and flying them into our buildings.  But either way, sure.

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 02, 2008, 01:28:15 PM
Iraq has never been about the "war on terror,"

:sly

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 02, 2008, 01:34:20 PM
i cant imagine too many of our soldiers would be for the torture of anyone because one day they may be in a captive situation and facing some electric shock therapy themselves and im pretty sure wed all want them to be treated humanely...gotta love these armchair tough guys like ff screaming torture em all...and in general you gotta be a pretty sick person to actually want another human being tortured

Quote from: rjs246 on July 02, 2008, 01:22:08 PM

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 02, 2008, 01:18:11 PM
Heads getting lopped off is ok, waterboarding bad...got it

Neither is ok.  That's the whole point.

true...but torture is much worse than quick death

Dude, you obviously didn't see the video.  "Lopped" off is a misnomer.  His head was sawn off, slowly, and he screamed bloody farging murder till his trachea got severed.  He probably died before the blade came out the back, but not before he suffered horribly.

Rhetorical Question:  Are there any Bush lovers left?

Torture is stupid and so are all of you for arguing about it for two farging pages.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on July 02, 2008, 09:43:41 PM
Rhetorical Question:  Are there any Bush lovers left?

Not so rhetorical answer:

Republicans?  Yes.
Bush lovers? Not bloody likely.

It's hard for a lot of people to realize there is a difference.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 02, 2008, 09:41:00 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 02, 2008, 01:34:20 PM
i cant imagine too many of our soldiers would be for the torture of anyone because one day they may be in a captive situation and facing some electric shock therapy themselves and im pretty sure wed all want them to be treated humanely...gotta love these armchair tough guys like ff screaming torture em all...and in general you gotta be a pretty sick person to actually want another human being tortured

Quote from: rjs246 on July 02, 2008, 01:22:08 PM

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 02, 2008, 01:18:11 PM
Heads getting lopped off is ok, waterboarding bad...got it

Neither is ok.  That's the whole point.

true...but torture is much worse than quick death

Dude, you obviously didn't see the video.  "Lopped" off is a misnomer.  His head was sawn off, slowly, and he screamed bloody farging murder till his trachea got severed.  He probably died before the blade came out the back, but not before he suffered horribly.

There are very few things in life I wish I could erase from my mind's eye.  That video is #1 on that list.

Quote from: Father Demon on July 02, 2008, 09:58:22 PM

Quote from: Geowhizzer on July 02, 2008, 09:43:41 PM
Rhetorical Question:  Are there any Bush lovers left?

Not so rhetorical answer:

Republicans?  Yes.
Bush lovers? Not bloody likely.

It's hard for a lot of people to realize there is a difference.

My mother was one of the biggest fans of Dubya in his first term and through about 2006.  He's even got her calling him a criminal now.

Bush is pulling something like a 25% approval rating.  That's a lot of people, Bush lovers all.

Quote from: Diomedes on July 02, 2008, 10:39:16 PM
Bush is pulling something like a 25% approval rating.  That's a lot of people, Bush lovers all.

i pass off about 5% of those people as patriotic sons of freedom types that could care less about anything but the fact that america is in a "war" and because of that they will support the president regardless...and while i dont agree with those i types i definitely respect them

on the other hand the other 20% are people i wish would be deported

Quote from: Father Demon on July 02, 2008, 09:58:22 PM
It's hard for a lot of people to realize there is a difference.

That's not true at all.  It's hard for a lot of people on :CF to realize the difference, but I wouldn't exactly take this crew as a representative sample of the American public or especially of the American politico circle.

I ate at an old style southern lunch kitchen this afternoon and some old farg was singing Bush's praises and saying how "libruls" were ruining the country and doing everything they can to destroy Bush.

It was awesome.

QuoteHe's even got her calling him a criminal now.

Good.

QuoteBush is pulling something like a 25% approval rating.  That's a lot of people, Bush lovers all.

Disecting that number is an interesting excercise. My guess would be that 1% answered in error, 3% answered yes only because they don't follow politics and figure someone should always support the president, 5% are old geezers who have always supported their party and questioning that now would require a higher level of cognition and effort to break the habit, and the remaining 16% or so are the die-hard facists and Fox News watching pseudo facists that have been trained to believe that the "libs" are out to get them. Prolly 6% and 10% relatively speaking but it's a blury line.

1% probably lied just to skew the results.

Journalist gives it a try, "No doubt, [waterboarding]'s torture" (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/07/08/waterboarding-hitchens.html)

QuoteHe'd lasted, he estimated, less than 10 seconds under the technique. "I would defy anyone to stand more — people with better lungs than me and people who are younger," he said in an interview Monday.

Quote"It had the effect very rapidly of inducing a panic and gag reflex," Hitchens said. "It's almost impossible to avoid doing that, even though ... you have some idea of what's coming and what's going on, your system overrides your brain in a sense and all you want to do is make sure you're not breathing water."

10 seconds?  He's a Hoyda.

He's also an atheist and an Iraq war supporter, and has a delightfully vicious tongue.

waterboarding or a dull knife slowly cutting off your head? id rather waterboard!

Waterboarding isn't torture.  It's merely uncomfortable gargling.

So, you'd be fine with our enemies subjecting U.S. soldiers to it?

Quote from: Diomedes on July 10, 2008, 08:44:31 PM
So, you'd be fine with our enemies subjecting U.S. soldiers to it?

As long as they're subjecting prisoners to deaths like slowly sawing off their head, I'm fine with waterboarding.

So you're happy to set your standards relative to what the enemy is doing, to let the enemy's moral compass define yours?

I'm happy to torture those who deserve it and those who associate themselves with the people that deserve it.

I would torture you, but lucky for you, I'm not allowed to torture even those who deserve it.

No, you're right, people that behead Americans in a slow, gruesome, agonizing way deserve to live out the rest of their lives in prison, getting fed three times a day.
Or die nice and painlessly from lethal injection.

My opinion only:

Torture sucks.  It shouldn't happen.  But it does.

To turn a blind eye to it because it is beneath "us" gains us nothing, while the enemy uses it to his gain.  We can take the higher road, but lose out in the big picture because it isn't soft and cuddly.   

If torture can gain us intelligence that may stop an attack, battle plan, or the whereabouts of a very highly placed leader, then it's a necessity.  Do I feel OK if it's used against a US service member?  Of course not.  Do I feel OK with it's use against the enemy?  Of course not.  From a person to person point of view, it is a despicable act, as even the enemy is a person with a mom, dad, and kids.   I empathize with not only the victim, but also with the person charged with doing it.

From a war perspective, I understand the value of it.  The enemy uses it for intelligence, and we use it for intelligence.  It is a wartime tool that will always be used to protect the lives and infrastructure of the side that imposes it, and as such, an invaluable one.  That will never stop.  It's a cruel and unthinkable truth in the art of warfare.  Certainly, torture will provide you with false intelligence, as any person will say anything to stop the pain and fear.  But it also gets real intelligence, which is needed to understand what the home team is up against.

I don't condone torture, but I understand the reasons it is used.

Torture is not the most effective means of getting information. It is only ever good for getting to hear what you want to hear. If there's one constant for every civilization, it's that they forget this.

^^

Neverminding that torture is immoral and uncivilized, this is the most cogent point yet made.  It doesn't work.

Munron, you're painfully young, so I'll give you a pass.  Someday I hope you'll realize that when you stoop to their level, you become them. 

This is another one of those issues that seems more and more to fall along political lines and I can't for the life of me figure out why conservatives would believe one thing while liberals would believe another. Admittedly I fall on the side of the liberals more often than not, but what do political beliefs have to do with the right and wrong of torture or stooping to the level of our enemies?

In life, that is an excellent question.  But on this board, it's simple, really.

Conservatives are always wrong, and Liberals are always right (er, correct).
It could be worse, though.  They could be posting to :CF from their cell phones.

I don't see how a country that justifies the use of torture can make any claim against other countries' human rights abuses.  On what basis do we have the right to call Saddam Hussein evil?  Because his country wouldn't allow western oil companies to drill in his country?

What makes a democracy (or republic) different from a dictatorship?  When congress knowingly and willingly flush the constitution down the toilet and grant unrestricted and unsupervised power to the executive, there is no difference.

Quote from: rjs246 on July 11, 2008, 07:31:42 AM
This is another one of those issues that seems more and more to fall along political lines and I can't for the life of me figure out why conservatives would believe one thing while liberals would believe another. Admittedly I fall on the side of the liberals more often than not, but what do political beliefs have to do with the right and wrong of torture or stooping to the level of our enemies?

its not so much a political issue...its simply the way a person thinks about the world and how they look at things...of course there are sheep out there but mostly people dont say im democrat so i have to be against torture...or im a pub so im all for it...they became dems or pubs long before torture was an issue

in this particular case it goes back to right wingers generally not caring about anyone but themselves...they dont look out for the person who could get hurt...they dont care that torturing another human being is uncivilized...that the person being tortured might actually not know anything or be completely innocent...that the method accomplishes nothing (as gf keenly pointed out)...or that this could come back on our own people...they dont care until:

IT HAPPENS TO THEM (which in most of these issues it never will)

its armchair quarterbacking at its worst...its easy for a munson to sit in ma dooks basement playing the fake drunk solo on his guitar or ff in his huntersville, nc cul de sac searching for his next dollar or dick cheney on his pheasent farm to all scream bloody murder because they will never be tortured and who cares if it happens to someone else

of course im generalizing and its not always this black white on issues but look across the board and youll see where the right stands on human rights issues for the most part and then youll see why this does primarily go along party lines but not because of political thinking

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 11, 2008, 08:31:23 AM
its armchair quarterbacking at its worst...its easy for a munson to sit in ma dooks basement playing the fake drunk solo on his guitar or ff in his huntersville, nc cul de sac searching for his next dollar or dick cheney on his pheasent farm to all scream bloody murder because they will never be tortured and who cares if it happens to someone else

of course im generalizing and its not always this black white on issues but look across the board and youll see where the right stands on human rights issues for the most part and then youll see why this does primarily go along party lines but not because of political thinking

So, in summary:

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 11, 2008, 07:57:36 AM
In life, that is an excellent question.  But on this board, it's simple, really.

Conservatives are always wrong, and Liberals are always right (er, correct).

its not a matter of wrong and right...you believe one thing i believe another...i was just exaplaing to rjs how we each get there

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 11, 2008, 09:21:42 AM
its not a matter of wrong and right...you believe one thing i believe another...

This is probably the thing you've said that makes the most sense ever.  Impressive.

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 11, 2008, 09:21:42 AM
i was just exaplaing to rjs how we each get there

On the other hand, your assumptions on how anyone could conceivably arrive at different opinions from your own are obtuse and asinine, as expected.

dont get it twisted...torturing human beings is deranged sick and twisted and flat out wrong and anyone that supports the tactic is highly suspect to me...however in my response to rjs i wasnt speaking on the right and wrong aspects of the issue...just how each side comes to their opinion

Exactly, and you were making outlandish and ridiculous comments about how any of us could possibly disagree with you, as usual.

You only know how you come to your own opinion.  Don't pretend to understand anyone else's reasons.

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 11, 2008, 09:32:47 AM
Exactly, and you were making outlandish and ridiculous comments about how any of us could possibly agree with tortuing another human being

yes i was because i think its sick to believe in that

hah I'm not even close to being a "conservative".

I just don't believe in treating people who slowly saw off the heads of Americans in a "fair" or "humane" manner...farg those people if they think they're getting 3 hot meals and a cot to sleep on.



Sorry I don't give a farg how good we treat the imprisoned terrorists. farg em.
You people worry to much about our image to the world. Here's a fact: It's already farged over. No one likes us, everyone thinks we're hypocrites anyway, and we were stupid enough to vote in Bush...TWICE. You act as if this will somehow "taint" the view people around the world have of America.
Get real.
It's been tainted.

Quote from: Munson on July 11, 2008, 12:48:30 PM
taint tainted.

haha

kid is such a dope...why did he put taint in quotes

It's code.  Read everything in quotes together.

Quote from: Munson on July 11, 2008, 12:48:30 PM
"conservative"
"fair"
"humane"
"taint"

That's hott.

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 11, 2008, 01:35:02 PM
It's code.  Read everything in quotes together.

Quote from: Munson on July 11, 2008, 12:48:30 PM
"conservative"
"fair"
"humane"
"taint"

That's hott.

holy crap thats priceless...i didnt even read it until you quoted the multiple taints

gotta make a move to a town thats right for me....a town to keep me movin
keep me groovin with some energy....well i talk about it...talk about it...talk about it...talk about movin

gotta move on....gotta move on...gotta move on...wont you take me to quotetown

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 11, 2008, 01:35:02 PM
It's code.  Read everything in quotes together.

Quote from: Munson on July 11, 2008, 12:48:30 PM
"conservative"
"fair"
"humane"
"taint"

That's hott.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 11, 2008, 01:33:00 PM
haha

kid is such a dope...why did he put taint in quotes

I don't know, but why are you such a fag?

Somebody just lost the battle.

There is no battle with IGY.
I just enjoy the internet superiority complex he seems to have.
I've never seen some actually believe he was right EVERY single time.

Why are you dopes treating the "sawing off the head" and torture as an either-or situation?  Both are abominable, and in the past either would be justification for US intervention, if not invasion.

Quote from: Cerevant on July 12, 2008, 07:46:18 AM
Why are you dopes treating the "sawing off the head" and torture as an either-or situation? 

blood thirsty heathens shouldnt be expected to rationalize should they?

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 12, 2008, 08:20:55 AM

Quote from: Cerevant on July 12, 2008, 07:46:18 AM
Why are you dopes treating the "sawing off the head" and torture as an either-or situation? 

blood thirsty heathens shouldnt be expected to rationalize should they?

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 02, 2008, 01:34:20 PM
true...but torture is much worse than quick death

Indeed.

Boom goes the dynamite?

WaPo link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

QuoteI'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

By Matthew Alexander
Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.
Sunday, November 30, 2008; B01

I should have felt triumphant when I returned from Iraq in August 2006. Instead, I was worried and exhausted. My team of interrogators had successfully hunted down one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war. But instead of celebrating our success, my mind was consumed with the unfinished business of our mission: fixing the deeply flawed, ineffective and un-American way the U.S. military conducts interrogations in Iraq. I'm still alarmed about that today.

I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.

Violence was at its peak during my five-month tour in Iraq. In February 2006, the month before I arrived, Zarqawi's forces (members of Iraq's Sunni minority) blew up the golden-domed Askariya mosque in Samarra, a shrine revered by Iraq's majority Shiites, and unleashed a wave of sectarian bloodshed. Reprisal killings became a daily occurrence, and suicide bombings were as common as car accidents. It felt as if the whole country was being blown to bits.

Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators' bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules -- and often break them. I don't have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse.

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.

Perhaps he should have. It turns out that my team was right to think that many disgruntled Sunnis could be peeled away from Zarqawi. A year later, Gen. David Petraeus helped boost the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces, cutting violence in the country dramatically.

Our new interrogation methods led to one of the war's biggest breakthroughs: We convinced one of Zarqawi's associates to give up the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader's location. On June 8, 2006, U.S. warplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a house where Zarqawi was meeting with other insurgent leaders.

But Zarqawi's death wasn't enough to convince the joint Special Operations task force for which I worked to change its attitude toward interrogations. The old methods continued. I came home from Iraq feeling as if my mission was far from accomplished. Soon after my return, the public learned that another part of our government, the CIA, had repeatedly used waterboarding to try to get information out of detainees.

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

After my return from Iraq, I began to write about my experiences because I felt obliged, as a military officer, not only to point out the broken wheel but to try to fix it. When I submitted the manuscript of my book about my Iraq experiences to the Defense Department for a standard review to ensure that it did not contain classified information, I got a nasty shock. Pentagon officials delayed the review past the first printing date and then redacted an extraordinary amount of unclassified material -- including passages copied verbatim from the Army's unclassified Field Manual on interrogations and material vibrantly displayed on the Army's own Web site. I sued, first to get the review completed and later to appeal the redactions. Apparently, some members of the military command are not only unconvinced by the arguments against torture; they don't even want the public to hear them.

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war -- one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like Zarqawi can kill us, but they can't force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I'll say to them, "Which one?"

Americans, including officers like myself, must fight to protect our values not only from al-Qaeda but also from those within our own country who would erode them. Other interrogators are also speaking out, including some former members of the military, the FBI and the CIA who met last summer to condemn torture and have spoken before Congress -- at considerable personal risk.

We're told that our only options are to persist in carrying out torture or to face another terrorist attack. But there truly is a better way to carry out interrogations -- and a way to get out of this false choice between torture and terror.

I'm actually quite optimistic these days, in no small measure because President-elect Barack Obama has promised to outlaw the practice of torture throughout our government. But until we renounce the sorts of abuses that have stained our national honor, al-Qaeda will be winning. Zarqawi is dead, but he has still forced us to show the world that we do not adhere to the principles we say we cherish. We're better than that. We're smarter, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/cia.tapes.destroyed/index.html

92 interrogation tapes destroyed by CIA under Bush

I like this part:

QuoteAccording to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, some of the videos showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding, which is said to simulate drowning and is considered by most people to be a form of torture.

Most people? What do the other people consider it to be?

We've got a handful of people here who think it's creative questioning, and of course wouldn't have any problem with our foes using it on our own troops.

The facists liked to call them "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElakDyNsFfc

There's probably like five guys in the world that pay some chick in a corset and stiletto heels to waterboard them.

Quote from: hbionic on March 02, 2009, 05:10:48 PM
I like this part:

QuoteAccording to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, some of the videos showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding, which is said to simulate drowning and is considered by most people to be a form of torture.

Most people? What do the other people consider it to be?

A cool water ride?

Quote from: Diomedes on March 02, 2009, 05:15:16 PM
We've got a handful of people here who think it's creative questioning, and of course wouldn't have any problem with our foes using it on our own troops.

In all honesty they way our troops or civilians have been treated in Iraq/Afganistan etc. would probably be much more happy to deal with waterboarding then cutting their fargin head off, or being burned and hung from bridges. I'm not saying Waterboarding is the way to go, but to say our troops wouldn't like it when they are treated the way they are currently is complete bullshtein.

Quote from: General_Failure on March 02, 2009, 06:11:26 PM
There's probably like five guys in the world that pay some chick in a corset and stiletto heels to waterboard them.

And two are here on CF.

Hbionic and rjs.

Hey man, I just know what I like.

Yes, but which would you prefer more...

That or Megan Fox jamming her thumbs in your pooper?

(http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2619/doctor4lj.jpg)

Can't it be both?

 :-D

Just a reminder. Torture doesn't protect us, and wasn't intended to. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?ref=opinion)

QuoteFive years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to "protect" us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from "another 9/11," torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House's illegality.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 02, 2009, 05:15:16 PM
We've got a handful of people here who think it's creative questioning, and of course wouldn't have any problem with our foes using it on our own troops.

Haven't read the whole thread as I have been away for awhile, but I wouldn't have a problem if our enemies waterboarded our troops.  It would be a vast improvement from the treatment they have received for the past 100 years.

I have heard this talking point from the left for the past few weeks and frankly do not understand it.  Regardless of your stance on waterboarding and whether or not it is torture, do you really believe that if we were to put the "enemy combatants" up in the Borgata versus Gitmo our troops would be treated any differently if they were captured??  They would have their heads cut off just as fast either way.

For the record, since I know what some of you are already thinking, I am against widespread use of enhanced interrogation techniques because when used regularly and on the wrong people it's worthless.  However, the US (and any Nation for that matter) should never take any technique off the table when there is an imminent threat to civilian populations.  I guarantee you that if when the US is hit with a mass casualty event again, and it is discovered that it could have been prevented (i.e. there was someone in custody and we asked them politely to tell us what they knew, but they refused and we said "OK thanks") there will be an impeachment.

That's a well-written opinion.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:11:34 PM
do you really believe that if we were to put the "enemy combatants" up in the Borgata versus Gitmo our troops would be treated any differently if they were captured??  They would have their heads cut off just as fast either way.

the people who would cut an americans head off would do it anyway....but what about people who would hold an american and not normally torture but figure since the US signs off on it we will do it to

you really think the only people an american could ever be held by would be a psychotic dome chopping muslim

i mean you dont think there are countries around the world that will use the same viewpoint that youre espousing "well america is going to torture us anyway so we should torture americans"

or are we the only ones that can have that perspective?

Has society ever changed?  Progressive minds in america and Europe will never change those in 3rd world countries and countries with little outside contact. 

I firmly belive Torture is wrong, but if you capture Bin Laden, i think he should get a pineapple up his ass every day at 4pm.

I don't believe that simply because our enemies are willing the torture that we also should be willing to torture. Research has shown repeatedly that torture doesn't produce helpful information. It produces information that will lead to the torture being stopped.

But even leaving that aside, I don't want to be represented by a government that would torture its enemies. There is a long history of human atrocity at the hands of governments and a break with that history is part of the guiding principle of the Constitution. This country was founded in part by the idea that we could improve upon past governments. Part of that improvement was a moral objection to torturing our enemies and we abided by that ideal for several hundred years. Now, suddenly, torturing our enemies is vital to protecting our country? I don't buy it and I'm saddened that the country I was raised to revere as a more perfect form of government has sunk to those depths and that there are people who are okay with it because they are so scared of some mystery boogeyman that they are willing to sacrifice their country's pride.

People are always going to dislike the US. There will always be someone, somewhere who would like to attack and kill Americans. How we defend against that and prepare for it says more about us and our strength as a country than anything. For the past 8 years what we've said is, 'We don't give a shtein about our own stated rules and beliefs. Keeping another plane from flying into a building is more important than our standing in the world as a moral and righteous country and in fact is more important than everything that we stand for.' That may be fine for some people, but with the world's largest and most well-trained military, my faith in the government's ability to protect me without torture is extremely high.

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 29, 2009, 12:32:12 PM
I firmly belive Torture is wrong, but if you capture Bin Laden, i think he should get a pineapple up his ass every day at 4pm.

Maybe that wouldn't be torture for him. ever think about that, smart guy?

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 29, 2009, 12:22:53 PM
the people who would cut an americans head off would do it anyway....but what about people who would hold an american and not normally torture but figure since the US signs off on it we will do it to

And who would those people be?  The North Koreans tortured the air crew from the downed spy plane a few years ago, the Vietnamese tortured, the Russians tortured our troops from Korea and Vietnam, the Germans, the Japanese...just who has treated US prisoners the way the US has treated its prisoners?  Three square meals a day with special dietary and religious menus, quality healthcare, religious freedom...the list goes on.

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 29, 2009, 12:22:53 PM
you really think the only people an american could ever be held by would be a psychotic dome chopping muslim

Certainly not as mentioned above.

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 29, 2009, 12:22:53 PM
also dont you think there are countries around the world that will use the same viewpoint that youre espousing "well america is going to torture us anyway so we should torture americans"

or are we the only ones that can have that perspective?

As I said, any Nation has the right to protect it's civilian population from a mass casualty event.  If Iran found an American agent with plans for a suitcase nuke to go off in Tehran, you bet I would expect that person to be tortured for more information and would have no problem with them doing it.  But we don't do that...there are people out there willing to do it to us. 

I am amazed at what some of the left and ACLU is calling torture though.  Loud music, bugs, barking dogs, lack of sleep...come the farg on.

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:33:55 PM
I don't believe that simply because our enemies are willing the torture that we also should be willing to torture. Research has shown repeatedly that torture doesn't produce helpful information. It produces information that will lead to the torture being stopped.

So you have just captured a person who had information on them relating to an imminent nuclear attack on Washington D.C..  What would you do?

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:34:34 PM

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 29, 2009, 12:32:12 PM
I firmly belive Torture is wrong, but if you capture Bin Laden, i think he should get a pineapple up his ass every day at 4pm.

Maybe that wouldn't be torture for him. ever think about that, smart guy?

Hitler didnt mind

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:38:32 PM
So you have just captured a person who had information on them relating to an imminent nuclear attack on Washington D.C..  What would you do?

threaten them with anal. So much that it will turn them gay. Worst case scenario, if they dont talk, at least you will have some guaranteed ass to tap.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:38:32 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:33:55 PM
I don't believe that simply because our enemies are willing the torture that we also should be willing to torture. Research has shown repeatedly that torture doesn't produce helpful information. It produces information that will lead to the torture being stopped.

So you have just captured a person who had information on them relating to an imminent nuclear attack on Washington D.C..  What would you do?

Ask him nicely to divulge the information.  If he does not, use taxpayer dollars give him a fair trail and if convicted, keep a roof over his head and keep him clothed/fed until he dies peacefully of natural causes.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:38:32 PM
So you have just captured a person who had information on them relating to an imminent nuclear attack on Washington D.C..  What would you do?

lol....you read to many tom clancy books

but if it makes you happy yes i would allow the torture of someone if it means saving the entire city of washington dc from a nuclear attack

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:11:34 PM
do you really believe that if we were to put the "enemy combatants" up in the Borgata versus Gitmo our troops would be treated any differently if they were captured??  They would have their heads cut off just as fast either way.

You are missing the point. Part of what our troops are fighting and dying for is the ideal that America and Americans stand for something completely different than what goes on in these countries, or what is done by our enemies.

The point that people like you miss, is that by doing these things, torturing and locking people up and presuming them guilty for years on end without a fair trial, is in away, self-defeat. Proving that the values and ideals we profess to the world are nothing but falsehoods is more important to extremists and rogue states than taking and holding land. If they can shift the opinion of the populace that America, it's troops, and it's policies say, "Do as we say, not as we do", they have won on a plain that is not fully recognized by people who sit far away and make uniformed statements like, "Well if we treat them nice, they will still treat us bad." Of course they will, it's the point. They are worse than we are, we are better than they are. We have the moral high ground.

I don't understand it. You don't want to to be thought as similar to the people. Why is that hard to understand? You are an American (I think), it should be ingrained into your moral fabric. The thought of Americans torturing enemies should cause revulsion and anger. Where you got the idea that it's okay to go for the "eye for an eye" line of reasoning shows a need for you to better understand the bedrock and ideals this country has been founded on.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:38:32 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:33:55 PM
I don't believe that simply because our enemies are willing the torture that we also should be willing to torture. Research has shown repeatedly that torture doesn't produce helpful information. It produces information that will lead to the torture being stopped.

So you have just captured a person who had information on them relating to an imminent nuclear attack on Washington D.C..  What would you do?

Are you suggesting that this is a regular occurrence? That this one-time-in-the-history-of-the-world type event where you have someone in custody and you already know that they have information about a nuclear attack is enough to justify a general acceptance of torture?

Give me a break. You are using a fantasy world, espionage novel example to justify torture. I'm talking about a government that tortured members of a terrorist organization that hides in the wilderness and straps dynamite to retards. Oh no! They're shipping exploding retards over to US soil by the thousands! We're in so much danger! Better torture someone about it.

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 29, 2009, 12:47:49 PM
lol....you read to many tom clancy books

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:49:15 PM
You are using a fantasy world, espionage novel example to justify torture.

Scary.

Quote from: PPinDC on April 29, 2009, 12:48:51 PM
You are missing the point. Part of what our troops are fighting and dying for is the ideal that America and Americans stand for something completely different than what goes on in these countries, or what is done by our enemies.

Amen.


And by the way, in the completely idiotic example that BB gave, yes I would be ok with using enhanced techniques to get information from the dude that we already know has information about the nuclear strike that we already know is going to happen. Satisfied?

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:49:15 PM
Oh no! They're shipping exploding retards over to US soil by the thousands! We're in so much danger! Better torture someone about it.

Way to give them a great idea on a public message board.  I hope the first batch of exploding retards arrives at Plymouth Rock, just like the Pilgrims.

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 29, 2009, 12:47:49 PM

lol....you read to many tom clancy books

but if it makes you happy yes i would allow the torture of someone if it means saving the entire city of washington dc from a nuclear attack

Sorry IGY, but that just shows your total ignorance of the reality the US faces today.  In the early parts of the Afgan war that type of intel (specifically bio and chemical info) was being found regularly.  It was also found in Iraq.  In most cases it was just "tough talk" but some of the material was actionable.  The point is there are people in the World today that would use those types of weapons on civilian populations in the US if given the opportunity, and that is a fact.  This isn't entertainment fiction, its the real world so joke all you want but I want a leader in place that will do whatever is necessary in the face of an imminent threat...not make calls to the ACLU for their opinion.

I feel sorry for people who are so scared of this country being attacked that they will sacrifice all other common sense and belief for the sake of 'being protected'. We are a geographically isolated country with the largest and most sophisticated military in the world. Torture won't make us any safer and if you require some sort of assurance that you will be safe from all danger you need to wake up and start living in the real world because that shtein ain't ever gonna happen.

awesome post DC

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:57:18 PM
I feel sorry for people who are so scared of this country being attacked that they will sacrifice all other common sense and belief for the sake of 'being protected'. We are a geographically isolated country with the largest and most sophisticated military in the world. Torture won't make us any safer and if you require some sort of assurance that you will be safe from all danger you need to wake up and start living in the real world because that shtein ain't ever gonna happen.

Would you support torturing ATV?

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 29, 2009, 12:59:58 PM
Would you support torturing ATV?

Yes but only for my own enjoyment. Any information he shares will not be relayed to the powers that be.

I find Monkey Torture funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgwWI76otZw)

I get the argument.  Yes, we are above it all.  I agree.  Mindless "torture" is wrong, and to apply it to everyone that is in custody is wrong.  But, in the name of "torture" I'm not sure that everyone is on the same page.  What is torture?

We have seen people do to their own people things so horrible and horrendous, it put's the term torture to a new level.  Beating people within an inch of their lives, stoning, cutting off hands/feet/fingers/etc, killing and raping family members, raping the prisoners, electrocution, breaking limbs...  they do this to their own people (yes, I'm talking about the middle east - our allies AND enemies), what will they do to their enemies?

But some of the stuff being mentioned as our torture techniques (from here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6111109.ece)) isn't torture.  Here's the list of 10:
(l) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8 ) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.

How many of those are really torture?  When I was a child, I was slapped (granted, not in the face), had a facial hold put on me, and told to stand in a corner by my parents.  I don't see how any one of those (waterboarding, aside, because I can't get my head around how that simulates drowning or death - some SEREs school grad fill me in, please) can be put in the same category as physical beatings, etc as I mentioned above.

I only subject myself to beatings in the bedroom, so I can't comment on what is torture and what isn't, but it seems to me that there is an international standard and rules about what constitutes torture and what doesn't. And if we are going to profess to take the moral high ground as a country, but not follow internationally agreed upon rules, that means that we aren't even meeting the bare minimums in terms or morality. So I think Demon's argument is fundamentally flawed.

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:57:18 PM
I feel sorry for people who are so scared of this country being attacked that they will sacrifice all other common sense and belief for the sake of 'being protected'. We are a geographically isolated country with the largest and most sophisticated military in the world. Torture won't make us any safer and if you require some sort of assurance that you will be safe from all danger you need to wake up and start living in the real world because that shtein ain't ever gonna happen.

Geographically isolated?  LOL.  Our borders are sieves, our ports unprotected, and the largest and most sophisticated military in the world isn't allowed to operate on our borders.

I'll say it again for those who have reading difficulties.  The widespread use of enhanced interrogation (waterboarding, bugs, sleep deprivation, standing for extended periods, etc. is not torture by the way) should never have been used as extensively as it was and is a waste of time for the reasons some of you mentioned. 

Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 12:38:32 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:33:55 PM
I don't believe that simply because our enemies are willing the torture that we also should be willing to torture. Research has shown repeatedly that torture doesn't produce helpful information. It produces information that will lead to the torture being stopped.

So you have just captured a person who had information on them relating to an imminent nuclear attack on Washington D.C..  What would you do?

if the intel on that person is good enough to find out that this individual has info regarding a nuclear attack, then intel should be good enough to gather more specifics without torturing.  

change your tactics.  find new ways to get him to talk without torturing him.  

people often think that just because something has always been done a certain way, that it must be the best and only way to do it.  nothing could be further from the truth.  

when the automobile was introduced it was largely rejected by people because they didn't think anything could ever replace the horse and buggy.  up until that point, horses had been the primary means of transportation of people and goods for hundreds and hundreds of years.  all it took was one guy to think outside the box and come up with a better way.  

same goes for interrogation techniques.  there's always going to be a better way.  

Arguing with a guy like Butchers Bill will never get you anywhere. He's not going to read anything typed here and have an epiphany and say to himself, "Wow, I understand why it's wrong!".

He most likely believes that his conservatism makes him more dedicated to keeping America the same than someone who leans more to the center or left. The truth is his right-wing belief that torture is justified does more to damage the true image of America, what it was intended to be by those who created it, and most importantly, those who have fought and died to protect the ideas they imparted in it's creation.

Quote from: PPinDC on April 29, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
Arguing with a guy like Butcher's Bill will never get you anywhere. He's not going to read anything typed here and have an epiphany and say to himself, "Wow, I understand why it's wrong!".

Quote from: PPinDC on April 29, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
Arguing with a guy like ATV will never get you anywhere. He's not going to read anything typed here and have an epiphany and say to himself, "Wow, I understand why it's wrong!".

Quote from: PPinDC on April 29, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
Arguing with a guy like IGY will never get you anywhere. He's not going to read anything typed here and have an epiphany and say to himself, "Wow, I understand why it's wrong!".

Quote from: PPinDC on April 29, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
Arguing with a guy like pretty much every other icehole on :CF will never get you anywhere. He's not going to read anything typed here and have an epiphany and say to himself, "Wow, I understand why it's wrong!".

Monkey Torture..YAY

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 12:57:18 PM
I feel sorry for people who are so scared of this country being attacked that they will sacrifice all other common sense and belief for the sake of 'being protected'. We are a geographically isolated country with the largest and most sophisticated military in the world. Torture won't make us any safer and if you require some sort of assurance that you will be safe from all danger you need to wake up and start living in the real world because that shtein ain't ever gonna happen.

spot farging on

Quote from: PPinDC on April 29, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
Arguing with a guy like Butcher's Bill will never get you anywhere. He's not going to read anything typed here and have an epiphany and say to himself, "Wow, I understand why it's wrong!".

He most likely believes that his conservatism makes him more convicted to keeping America the same than someone who leans more to the center or left. The truth is his right-wing belief that torture is justified does more to damage the true image of America, what it was intended to be by those who created it, and most importantly, those who have fought and died to protect the ideas they imparted in it's creation.

And elitist thinking like yours, where you believe you are an "intellectual" by assuming everything you say is correct and everything anyone else says is wrong, certainly gets us places doesn't it?  If you had half the intellectual capacity you believe you have you would see that we actually agree that 1) torture is wrong and the US shouldn't be doing it, and 2) The perception that the US "tortures" hurts all American interests.  We disagree on some basic tenets as far was what constitutes "torture" and perhaps whether or not it should be used at all but our opinions aren't as different as you think.

Twisting sentences and words or others into what you want to hear rather than what they actually mean doesn't make your points more valid. 

PPinDC is the winner of this thread. He said what I tried to but could not. Torture is un-American and it should make everyone's skin crawl to know that we sanctioned it.

Amen.  Now tell me what does and doesn't constitute torture, and we'll call it a day.

Having conversations on this board = torture.
Shoving my face in between Megan Fox's asscheeks != torture.

It's a subtle, but important, difference.

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 01:41:05 PM
Having conversations on this board = torture.
Shoving my face in between Megan Fox's asscheeks != torture.

It's a subtle, but important, difference.

the only difference i see is that in the former, you are being tortured and in the latter, megan fox is being tortured. 

She likes the assplay. Bet.

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 01:43:25 PM
She likes the assplay. Bet.

oh man... i need new pants

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 01:41:05 PM
Shoving my face in between Megan Fox's asscheeks != torture.

What if she ate asparagus with hot sauce for lunch, and washed it down with a half gallon of whole milk?

Quote from: rjs246 on April 29, 2009, 01:41:05 PM
Having conversations on this board = torture.
Shoving my face in between Megan Fox's asscheeks != torture.

It's a subtle, but important, difference.

Now see, if it were Andy Reids ass cheeks a few hours after a Chinese buffet we would have some common ground.

Quote from: FastFreddie on April 29, 2009, 01:39:32 PM
Amen.  Now tell me what does and doesn't constitute torture, and we'll call it a day.

I have a hard time understanding this thread.  I'm just not sensitive enough :paranoid

IMO... The important thing to know prior to interrogating someone is simple:  Is this individual is a high priority, informed enemy combatant and is he in all likelyhood in possession(sp?) of information that will save American, allies or friendlies lives (like KSM).  If he fits the above description bring out the long handle pruning sheers and stop wasting time.  If not just lock him up.

This shouldn't be hard to figure out.  They torture our guys and cuts there heads off on tv for fun.  We aren't gonna kill any body.  It's just going to take them longer to figure out how to play the piano :evil

except torturing has been proven to not work...and often does the opposite by getting false info

lets be honest anyone that is down with torturing is all about revenge and trying to be a john wayne big bad american type..which is why any conversation with a person who is pro torture will always include something about americans being beheaded...they dont give a rats ass about intelligence or a nuclear bomb going off because they know torture doesnt stop that and most likely never will...they are out for blood for people who have already been killed by terrorists

it really isnt any different from people who live to puff their chest out about capital punishment and "frying people" who commit crimes

perhaps it's hypocritical but even though i'm against torture, i totally support the death penalty. 

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 02:12:39 PM
perhaps it's hypocritical but even though i'm against torture, i totally support the death penalty. 

It is hypocritical and I am with you 100%.

you have a crush on me.  that's so cute. 

The biggest problem with torture, however you choose to define it, is the complete circumvention of due process. Not to mention the "Patriot" Act allows for legitimate citizens to be exposed to "enhanced interrogative techniques" (nice farging euphemism).

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 29, 2009, 02:10:21 PM
except torturing has been proven to not work...and often does the opposite by getting false info

Torture does not work if the person in hot seat doesn't know anything.  I have never tortured anyone but I have seen first hand how effective scaring the schtein out of someone is....they will give up their mother and tell everything + if properly motivated.  The torture doesn't work crowd are "bending the numbers" for some political feel good reason.  It obviously doesn't work if the prisoner doesn't know the answer and it should be used rarely with great discretion.

Quote from: Tomahawk on April 29, 2009, 02:16:49 PM
The biggest problem with torture, however you choose to define it, is the complete circumvention of due process.

The "due process" issue is the problem with terrorists.  Since they don't belong to a standing "Army" they aren't POW's (who you don't put on trial because they have not broken the law), yet we have created these terms "lawful" and "unlawful" enemy combatants and no one knows what to do with them.  Generally you don't hand over POW's until the war is over, but terrorism never ends, so now what?  Put these guys on trial for shooting as US soldiers?  For carrying weapons in Afganistan?  For having bomb making material?  This isn't CSI.  Who will be the witnesses?  Will there be a discovery period?  Does each and every single person you bring off the battlefield have to be read Miranda rights in six different languages to make sure they understand?  Does each and every single "combatant" get their own trial?? 

I don't have an answer, but its clearly an issue that no one has been able to solve yet. 

Quote from: fansince61 on April 29, 2009, 02:28:40 PM
...and it should be used rarely with great discretion.

Don't think the leftists here will bother reading that.  They have been ranting all day about rampant torture and think they are on a roll.  I have not seen anyone on this board support the use of "torture" (again - undefined) as a standard operating procedure, but yet that's what will be discussed...again.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 02:12:39 PM
perhaps it's hypocritical but even though i'm against torture, i totally support the death penalty. 

I am oddly enough really starting to despise the death penalty a bit.  The problem is that I don't trust our judicial system to get it correct.  There are too many people wrongly convicted.  Sadly, many guilty people also go free.

Plus, you'll all be surprised that this pulls at my heartstrings, but the death penalty in the USA is MORE EXPENSIVE than life in prison for the taxpayer.  Awful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23576-2005Apr3.html

this story is a few years old but i don't remember hearing about it.  i think it's pretty interesting though.  

QuoteOn Jan. 19, 1991, in the opening days of the war to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, Air Force Maj. Jeffrey Tice's F-16 was shot down over Baghdad. Over the next six weeks in Iraqi captivity, Tice was repeatedly beaten, subjected to electric shock and left in a dirty cell with meager rations.

........

In April 2002, Tice, now a retired lieutenant colonel, and 16 other former POWs and their families sued the Saddam Hussein government in U.S. District Court in Washington. Iraq refused to contest the charges, and in 2003, Judge Richard W. Roberts determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to $959 million in damages, which would have to come from assets now controlled by the new U.S.-backed Iraqi government.

......

Yet today, the Bush administration is urging the Supreme Court to oppose the former prisoners of war.

Quote from: FastFreddie on April 29, 2009, 02:37:51 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 02:12:39 PM
perhaps it's hypocritical but even though i'm against torture, i totally support the death penalty. 

I am oddly enough really starting to despise the death penalty a bit.  The problem is that I don't trust our judicial system to get it correct.  There are too many people wrongly convicted.  Sadly, many guilty people also go free.

Plus, you'll all be surprised that this pulls at my heartstrings, but the death penalty in the USA is MORE EXPENSIVE than life in prison for the taxpayer.  Awful.

how is it more expensive?  i'm guessing that you are factoring in the additional legal costs that will be accrued because the convicted with file dozens of appeals and the gov't will be footing the bill for all of those legal fees?  i guess it makes sense.  hadn't really thought about it that way before. 

as for the wrongful convictions, i admit it's a concern.  but i think wrongful convictions are less likely to happen today because of the advancements in dna testing and forensic science.  and police and prosecutors are so hesitant to file charges these days unless they are nearly certain they can get a conviction, which usually means they won't go after someone unless they've got a mountain of indisputable evidence that points blame at the accused. 

it might not be 100% but the margin for error is gradually becoming smaller and smaller. 

Remember, the Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed combat soldiers.  What you have in Iraq, Pakistan and Afgan.  are civilian nonuniform combatants which as per the Geneva Convention are spies and can be shot.  They do not have to be given Geneva Status.  This was another colossal Bush fargup when the invasion started as he was trying to kiss middle east/liberal/Europen ass and "play nice" in war.  If a nuke goes off in Hollywood which could have been prevented with more aggressive "interrogation techniques" the interrogation guidelines" will change faster than greased owl poo.

The biggest problem with the death penalty is that it is used disproportionately against minorities. White dude gets convicted of murder, he gets life. Black dude gets convicted, he gets the chamber. The statistics are staggering. Actually, every statistic I've ever read screams that the death penalty is an unfair practice.

Having said that, I still support it. There are some people who can't be rehabilitated and who's crimes are so awful that they shouldn't be among the living. And I'll never be convinced otherwise.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
how is it more expensive?  i'm guessing that you are factoring in the additional legal costs that will be accrued because the convicted with file dozens of appeals and the gov't will be footing the bill for all of those legal fees?  i guess it makes sense.  hadn't really thought about it that way before. 

Yes, it's something like that.  I mean, if they just took the dude outside the courtroom and blew his brains out, it would be different.

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 02:52:04 PM
as for the wrongful convictions, i admit it's a concern.  but i think wrongful convictions are less likely to happen today because of the advancements in dna testing and forensic science.  and police and prosecutors are so hesitant to file charges these days unless they are nearly certain they can get a conviction, which usually means they won't go after someone unless they've got a mountain of indisputable evidence that points blame at the accused. 

it might not be 100% but the margin for error is gradually becoming smaller and smaller. 

It's not even 90%, probably.  Smaller is not good enough.  It should be some sort of Six Sigma shtein.

point taken.  i admit it's a flawed system.  but that still doesn't mean that i would be opposed to a serial killer getting the death needle. 

In theory, me neither.

yeah, your issue isn't with the death penalty itself.  it's with the system that decides who lives and dies. 

Naturally.  I'm a cold-blooded right wing zealout!  Kill 'em all!

I have no confidence in the government or law enforcement bureaucracies.  The number of times information is witheld at trial by the prosecution that would exonerate the defendant, but is withheld just so the DA's conviction "stats" would go up and advance his career really sucks.

Answer:  The prosecutors serve the term the defendant was to get, problem solved, mission accomplished

Quote from: fansince61 on April 29, 2009, 02:28:40 PM
Torture does not work if the person in hot seat doesn't know anything. 

lol

Quote from: FastFreddie on April 29, 2009, 02:37:51 PM

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 02:12:39 PM
perhaps it's hypocritical but even though i'm against torture, i totally support the death penalty. 

I am oddly enough really starting to despise the death penalty a bit.  The problem is that I don't trust our judicial system to get it correct.  There are too many people wrongly convicted.  Sadly, many guilty people also go free.

That's where I am at this point.  The chances of an innocent person being executed are far too high for me to in good conscience condone the death penalty.

In WWII U.S. interrogators used chess to work their way into Nazi heads and gain intel.  That was when America was noble.  Now, we stand 'em naked with their arms chained to the ceiling and throw cold water on them for days on end.  Others have said it well enough I won't belabor the point.  Torture is ineffective unamerican and immoral.

I universally oppose the death penalty.  Life in prison without parole is the solution.  Capital punishment is unfairly administered, ineffective at deterring crime, and financially wasteful.  Not to mention you can't really call it a democracy if the government can kill (or for that matter torture) its own citizens.

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:39:36 PM
In WWII U.S. interrogators used chess to work their way into Nazi heads and gain intel.  That was when America was noble.

That was also when the United States put tens of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because of their race.

At least the blankets were uninfected.

I don't oppose the idea of the death penalty.

I oppose the current implimentation.

Ever see that show, To Catch A Predator?If I ran things, there would be a dude behind the door with a .22 who put a round right behind the ear of every sicko bastich that walked into the house. Leave em in a pile. I don't think anyone could disagree with the death penalty for the likes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bB-9QnGNvxg&hl=en&fs=1

Quote from: QB Eagles on April 29, 2009, 07:45:25 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:39:36 PM
In WWII U.S. interrogators used chess to work their way into Nazi heads and gain intel.  That was when America was noble.

That was also when the United States put tens of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because of their race.

Good point.  America wasn't quite as noble as I like to think it was back then.

Still, torture....no.

LOL, no torture at all during WWII

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:50:20 PM

Quote from: QB Eagles on April 29, 2009, 07:45:25 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:39:36 PM
In WWII U.S. interrogators used chess to work their way into Nazi heads and gain intel.  That was when America was noble.

That was also when the United States put tens of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because of their race.

Good point.  America wasn't quite as noble as I like to think it was back then.

Still, torture....no.

Troof. But we as a culture that prides itself on being the shining bastion of Democracy, equal rights, fairness, etc. should be able to recognize where we got it right, where we got it wrong, and correct it. The Phillipine-American war was the first time to my knowledge that waterboarding was used by Americans, to whit:

Quote
"A man is thrown down on his back and three or four men sit or stand on his arms and legs and hold him down; and either a gun barrel or a rifle barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as a belaying pin, -- that is, with an inch circumference, -- is simply thrust into his jaws and his jaws are thrust back, and, if possible, a wooden log or stone is put under his head or neck, so he can be held more firmly. In the case of very old men I have seen their teeth fall out, -- I mean when it was done a little roughly. He is simply held down and then water is poured onto his face down his throat and nose from a jar; and that is kept up until the man gives some sign or becomes unconscious. And, when he becomes unconscious, he is simply rolled aside and he is allowed to come to. In almost every case the men have been a little roughly handled. They were rolled aside rudely, so that water was expelled. A man suffers tremendously, there is no doubt about it. His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown. ..."

It was reasoned then that the Filipino victims were savages, and understood no other way, and would bend to no other form of interrogation. The practice then was admonished by the American public, as it believed that it was the American soldiers who had become the savages.

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:50:20 PM

Quote from: QB Eagles on April 29, 2009, 07:45:25 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:39:36 PM
In WWII U.S. interrogators used chess to work their way into Nazi heads and gain intel.  That was when America was noble.

That was also when the United States put tens of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because of their race.

Good point.  America wasn't quite as noble as I like to think it was back then.

Still, torture....no.

I agree with you on torture and capital punishment (and waterboarding is definitely torture). But I must say, the main reason the US did not torture in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese had many thousands of American POWs. Obviously some of these American POWs were treated quite badly anyway, but the situation could have really gotten out of hand if word got back to Axis HQ that the Allies considered torture fair game.

German POWs were treated a lot worse by the Allies after the war was officially over. I don't think it was ever a result of a policy of torture, but the officials looked the other way on beatings, starvations, etc -- sometimes to death -- in that era.

Incidentally, I believe that authorizing waterboarding was among the war crimes that Japanese officials were charged with after the war.

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:39:36 PM
I universally oppose the death penalty.  Life in prison without parole is the solution.  Capital punishment is unfairly administered, ineffective at deterring crime, and financially wasteful.  Not to mention you can't really call it a democracy if the government can kill (or for that matter torture) its own citizens.

i keep a small magazine rack in my bathroom, mostly old issues of playboy and penthouse from when i subsribed to them about 10 yrs ago.  anyway, i was taking a pretty hefty dump the other day so i pulled out an old penthouse and started thumbing though.  there was an article in there that caught my eye about dubbya titled "what me, worry?" from 2000 when dubbya was running for prez.  it focuses on dubbya's policies as texas gov, primarily regarding crime, punishment and the texas prison system. 

i tried finding a copy of it online to link to, but no luck.  if i get some free time, i might go through the trouble of scanning it so i can host it online and link it here.  it really was a good read and would have served as a good warning to the type of person bush was before we elected him to office.  who knew that penthouse was capable of publishing good articles outside of their forum?

in a nutshell, when dubbya enacted his new policies, texas prisons began getting over crowded and steeper punishements were handed out.....especially life w/o parole and death sentences.  the end result was that prison violence began to escalate at alarming rates because now that these prisoners are either on death row or serving life w/o parole possibilities, there is no incentive for them at all to go along peacefully.  gang activity in the prisons increased, guards were attacked and murdered, prisoners were attacking other prisoners, holding them hostage, murder, etc.  it all increased.  the inmates were literally running the asylum.  prisons were critically undermaned with guards and the guards that were working were highly unqualified and there were cases of guards working for the prisoners in exchange for protection.  yeah, the prisoners were offering guards protection and in one documented case, a female guard was paying inmates by having sex with them. 

anyway, the long term prison sentences won't really solve any problems imo.  it's just sweeping a problem under the rug. 

of course, what to do with hard core criminals is probably a problem that will never truly get solved.  do you go eye for an eye and sentence a murderer to death?  what if he's later found innocent by scientific evidence 20 years later?  but if you sentence him to life w/o parole, he's now spent 20 years in the prison system and is getting released at mid-life.  after spending 20 years with the scum of the earth, is he not going to assemilate even a little into the criminal lifestyle?  is releasing him back into society really going to benefit him at that point?  should we start a prison colony on the moon and simply jettison convicts up there and let them murderdeathkill each other?  there probably isn't a single right answer on how to address the problem.  but i know that when it comes to the criminals who are beyond help and reform.....the violent killers and rapists.....i have no problem with just eliminating them completely and making the world a slightly better place to live. 

Quote from: Diomedes on April 29, 2009, 07:39:36 PM
In WWII U.S. interrogators used chess to work their way into Nazi heads and gain intel.  That was when America was noble.  Now, we stand 'em naked with their arms chained to the ceiling and throw cold water on them for days on end.  Others have said it well enough I won't belabor the point.  Torture is ineffective unamerican and immoral.

The RVN and Desert Storm 1 & 2 soldiers appear to be Ghandi-esk compared to the WWII guys.  All Americans were pulling for America in WWII (libs and conservatives!).  We  just have soo many "smart people" today who are experts on things they know nothing about..children running the country from their lofty positions above the citizen/soldier rabble.  If we are attacked again may they be the first to go. GBA

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 09:08:52 PM


of course, what to do with hard core criminals is probably a problem that will never truly get solved....should we start a prison colony on the moon and simply jettison convicts up there and let them murderdeathkill each other? 

The Moon, New York City, same thing.


(http://www.treehugger.com/2008-02-27_093122-Treehugger-excapefromnew-york.jpg)

Not only did the Bush administration torture, but they tortured to death....and some of the victims were innocent....

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/06/us-interrogators-killed-dozens-human-rights-researcher-and-rights-group-say/