Toture

[Paper Hearts]

Prior to the Bush administration, the CIA used methods of non violent interrogation that were based upon (aside from laws that we've decided define civility stemming from our Constitution) findings that non violent approaches in information gathering are more successful on two counts:

1. you receive more intelligence

2. the intelligence you receive is more reliable

However, with the Bush administration a policy of violent interrogations has been implemented, including (although not limited to) simulated drowning (repeated head dunking, in water) extreme temperature exposure, beating, psychological torment through isolation and other methods, the use of dogs and also sexual humiliation.

Personally, I feel that even in the event that such methods become more effective, I'd rather be remembered as a civilized person who never compromised himself and died in a terrorist attack than an asshole who goes on existing.

-Just wondering where other people are at on this.

[BrassFusion]

Prior to the Bush administration, the CIA used methods of non violent interrogation that where based upon (aside from laws that we've decided define civility stemming from our Constitution) findings that non violent approaches in information gathering are more successful on two counts:

1. you receive more intelligence

2. the intelligence you receive is more reliable

However, with the Bush administration a policy of violent interrogations has been implemented, including (although not limited to) simulated drowning (repeated head dunking, in water) extreme temperature exposure, beating, psychological torment through isolation and other methods, the use of dogs and also sexual humiliation.

Personally, I feel that even in the event that such methods become more effective, I'd rather be remembered as a civilized person who never compromised himself and died in a terrorist attack than an asshole who goes on existing.

-Just wondering where other people are at on this.

If what you say is true, I agree. If what you say isn't true, I clearly don't have enough to go on.

[Steven]

I understand where your coming from Paperhearts but the fact is we dont really know any of this for sure. It's definately flavourd with the popular I HATE BUSH seasoning of the day....and I'm not even a Bush supporter per se.....I just think that what the public thinks they know about spooks and consular operations is very limited.

[Paper Hearts]

Actually, It has been admitted true by the Bush administration, although it was a secret program at first, and the only defense of it (by the administration) has been that simulated drowning (repeated head dunking, in water) extreme temperature exposure, beating, psychological torment through isolation in dark 3X5X7 rooms and other methods, the use of dogs and also sexual humiliation, etc, do not constitute torture...until our courts ruled otherwise and then the response was an attempt by Bush officials to redefine torture in our laws.

[phee]

Actually, It has been admitted true by the Bush administration, although it was a secret program at first, and the only defense of it (by the administration) has been that simulated drowning (repeated head dunking, in water) extreme temperature exposure, beating, psychological torment through isolation in dark 3X5X7 rooms and other methods, the use of dogs and also sexual humiliation, etc, do not constitute torture...until our courts ruled otherwise and then the response was an attempt by Bush officials to redefine torture in our laws.

This is true

[Steven]

This is true

these techniques are also not new.

there's what you read and what you hear.

spooks I knew/know during my tour and afterward have told me these stories before.

I'm not arguing for condining these things.

I'm only "suggesting" that perhaps these thigns ahve always been here...they are not rooted in this administration, and I dont even think they've been ressurected in this administration.

[Paper Hearts]

these techniques are also not new.

there's what you read and what you hear.

spooks I knew/know during my tour and afterward have told me these stories before.

I'm not arguing for condining these things.

I'm only "suggesting" that perhaps these thigns ahve always been here...they are not rooted in this administration, and I dont even think they've been ressurected in this administration.

On the other hand, secret memos from the President's desk advising these techniques begin have been leaked to the press. And when confronted on this evidence (and other evidence) the defense was that the President believes that the techniques are within the law.

I'm speaking of systematic torture directed by an official agenda, not the actions of a few rogue soldiers.

Republican senator John McCain, also a former soldier (and POW) has offered frequent criticism to the President (also Republican) for such policies, recently.

[Vater Araignee]

According to my who has personally conducted interrogations since the Clinton Administration, as far as he/she can glean through documentation this has been going on back to the Carter Admin and most likely even further back.

I don't hear any bitching about...

Well that's best saved for another topic.

[Liberal Larry]

Prior to the Bush administration, the CIA used methods of non violent interrogation that were based upon (aside from laws that we've decided define civility stemming from our Constitution) findings that non violent approaches in information gathering are more successful on two counts:

1. you receive more intelligence

2. the intelligence you receive is more reliable

However, with the Bush administration a policy of violent interrogations has been implemented, including (although not limited to) simulated drowning (repeated head dunking, in water) extreme temperature exposure, beating, psychological torment through isolation and other methods, the use of dogs and also sexual humiliation.

Personally, I feel that even in the event that such methods become more effective, I'd rather be remembered as a civilized person who never compromised himself and died in a terrorist attack than an asshole who goes on existing.

-Just wondering where other people are at on this.

Not 100% true, the illegal entity known as the CIA has been torturing people since it's illegal inception.

[Steven]

Not 100% true, the illegal entity known as the CIA has been torturing people since it's illegal inception.

and this is what I mean. I used to work for a man who worked for the CIA during his tour (2 tours) of vietnam. He did alot worse than what Paper Hearts listed. I also worked woth former Navy spooks when I was a bomb dog handler....there is a deep and dark history to these thigns. And its not just the CIA either, and its not just a few rogue soldiers. I know there are document leaks and trails of evidence and all of that and I'm sure there is some creedence there. And again I'm not arguing for condoning these things. I'm simply saying that these things have always been around, and probably always will. We did Americans did not invent this, nor did the current administration. were jsut shaking the tree right now to add to the anti bush mentality. I supported Bush in teh very beginning. I no longer do. But he's not Satan. Everyonbe knows that Oprah is Satan.

[Steven]

According to my who has personally conducted interrogations since the Clinton Administration, as far as he/she can glean through documentation this has been going on back to the Carter Admin and most likely even further back.

I don't hear any bitching about...

Well that's best saved for another topic.

thank you. and I agree. and may I add that I personally beleive, that there is always the Brass behind these sorts of things. Beleive me they know whats going on.

[Paper Hearts]

Is it fair to say that with the Bush administration torture became official policy? Something that started out as a Bush administration secret program, yes, but now is an official agenda- I would have protested as much if any President's administration had been found guilty of violating such basic principals of our mandate, even for implied ignorance of those principals. And at the moment such polocies come to light it's irrelevant to suggest that it's just part of something that has existed forever, from all stand points, including a legal perspective.

Anyway, according to interviews that I've read, the CIA had issues with Bush's new method's for interrogation because they were considered to be more unsuccessfull and illegal. For instance, there's been an sharp increase in CIA members taking out insurance that would pay for legal expenses in the event that lawsuits are filed against them for participating in illegal directives.

And with all due respect, this thread isn't about if torture existed previously but if you support it or not.

[pharoh]

Well here comes the flames but I am one for torture. And I feel Dunking someones head underwater or whatever else was listed so far really isn't that bad and I would do much worse to someone if they were withholding information that could save lives or prevent another attack on our soil or whatever the case may be.

It's really all about moderation.....are you gonna torture someone over something as small as a parking ticket? No. No on the other hand if there was someone who was planning harm many people at once and the person in your holding know's about it and he won't talk? By all means necessary to protect the greater good.

And maybee just to expand on this topic alittle more, what types of torture in everyones eyes would be considered acceptable or not?

Great topic BTW.

[Paper Hearts]

Well here comes the flames but I am one for torture. And I feel Dunking someones head underwater or whatever else was listed so far really isn't that bad and I would do much worse to someone if they were withholding information that could save lives or prevent another attack on our soil or whatever the case may be.

It's really all about moderation.....are you gonna torture someone over something as small as a parking ticket? No. No on the other hand if there was someone who was planning harm many people at once and the person in your holding know's about it and he won't talk? By all means necessary to protect the greater good.

And maybee just to expand on this topic alittle more, what types of torture in everyones eyes would be considered acceptable or not?

Great topic BTW.

No, I'm not here to judge anyone, there are several arguments that could be raised in favor of these polocies, however all of them have failed to appear here so far.

I would remind you however that some of our own private citizens, have been abducted and tortured and (for lack of evidence against them) unceremoniously released, afterwards. In other words, If you'd like yourself or your children to be locked in a dark 3X5X7 room, while chained to the center of the floor by the neck, without access to a toilet, for more than a day at a time, and this is moderation, I congratulate you for amazing tolerance. Because that's an accurate description of common practice. In other words, no parking ticket is required--you can be completely innocent and have it happen to you.

[Steven]

Yes, all respect is due (kidding) and I understand that your not discussing the orgins of torture.....thats cool.

I think we live in a day and age when information technology makes it much more difficult to hide things. Hence - your example about CIA operatives taking out insurance. I also have a hard time beleiving that the CIA in and of itself is adhering to a tactical mandate by the commander in cheif.....that just does not sound like the CIA. I also have a hard time beleiving that the CIA is possibly concerned with legalities based on an ethical argument (and I inserted that because I realize that you did not). I think their concerns are probably rooted in their ability to be tracked. It sounds to me, like damage control, preemptive damage control, the creation of a fall guy or a conduit to point fingers at.

[pharoh]

No, I'm not here to judge anyone, there are several arguments that could be raised in favor of these polocies, however all of them have failed to appear here so far.

I would remind you however that some of our own private citizens, have been abducted and tortured and (for lack of evidence against them) unceremoniously released, afterwards. In other words, If you'd like yourself or your children to be locked in a dark 3X5X7 room, while chained to the center of the floor by the neck, without access to a toilet, for more than a day at a time, and this is moderation, I congratulate you for amazing tolerance. Because that's an accurate description of common practice.

I have seen tortue and I know what happens, and if my child (if I had one) or myself was abducted and tortured for a lack of evidence (and did not do anything), then there would definately be hell to pay, but what about someone who you have a hunch on that would say have intel on something like another 9/11 attack. How would you deal with it? I am doing my best to try to look at it from thier perspective, but you know this is one of those conversations where nobody's minds would be changed lol.

[Paper Hearts]

I have seen tortue and I know what happens, and if my child (if I had one) or myself was abducted and tortured for a lack of evidence (and did not do anything), then there would definately be hell to pay, but what about someone who you have a hunch on that would say have intel on something like another 9/11 attack. How would you deal with it? I am doing my best to try to look at it from thier perspective, but you know this is one of those conversations where nobody's minds would be changed lol.

Well, all right. In cases where completely innocent people have been tortured, as far as 'hell to pay', there has never been so much as an apology. Addressing your question, if I have a hunch that someone might have valuable intelligence, I also remember that they may be completely innocent. If on the other hand I feel I 'know' that someone possesses valuable intelligence then I remember that they have not been convicted and I stick with my principals. It's especially important to stick by the principals that your country claims when you're in a war for the hearts and minds of Islam, something you're are trying to win over, and something that allows revenge for wrong doing against it's members. Albeit the program was meant to be secret, getting found out is necessarily one of the risks.

It seems especially naive to believe that these people will give up what is actually their religion in favor of Starbuck's and McDonald's (although it looks great on paper). And it's as direct result of such bad policies that on a broader scale than just Iraq all indicators show opposition to be growing and that within Iraq any victories we can list are purely cosmetic and forced.

Case in point: a 25 million dollar bounty on Osama Bin Ladin's head, yet to be collected.

[pharoh]

Well, all right. In cases where completely innocent people have been tortured, as far as 'hell to pay', there has never been so much as an apology. Addressing your question, if I have a hunch that someone might have valuable intelligence, I also remember that they may be completely innocent. If on the other hand I feel I 'know' that someone possesses valuable intelligence then I remember that they have not been convicted and I stick with my principals. It's especially important to stick by the principals that your country claims when you're in a war for the hearts and minds of Islam, something you're are trying to win over, and something that allows revenge for wrong doing against it's members. Albeit the program was meant to be secret, getting found out is necessarily one of the risks.

It seems especially naive to believe that these people will give up what is actually their religion in favor of Starbuck's and McDonald's (although it looks great on paper). And it's as direct result of such bad policies that on a broader scale than just Iraq all indicators show opposition to be growing and that within Iraq any victories we can list are purely cosmetic and forced.

Case in point: a 25 million dollar bounty on Osama Bin Ladin's head, yet to be collected.

Very well said PH, I aggree with the second half, but on the first half I do not. I am all for winning a nation/country/whatever hearts and minds over, but not at the cost of our lives....therefore, if someone is holding back intel that will kill american innocents, then I would do whatever I can to make them talk. At some point in time someone is gonna have to be the bad guy for the sake of self preservation. I would not consider someone evil or wrong for stepping up and doing something bad for the greater of good as long as thier intent were clear. There is always gonna be some prick that is gonna take it to far, thats just how life is, but what would you propose to correct an issue like this. How would you get information from someone without using torture that will save lives? I am curious as to how your methods would be.

[Homicidalheathen]

If there were a terrorist in prison today, with knowledge of something about to go down that might hurt my family....and he wouldn't talk......well......no, I still wouldn't think it ok to torture him until he talks. Why? Well, does 2 wrongs make a right, one.....and......can you be sure he would give you honest info? Some people can take allot of pain.

If he is locked up and cannot help.......his comrads.....that is enough I think....if the government knows enough about his actions to have him in there in the first place then I am thinking they probably already have a good idea about the actions about to be taken anyway and can do something about it without torturing the person......but.......no I am not sure and......

I am kinda an old hippie. Hurt none, leave only good behind.....take your losses......but......

Then on the other hand I do love my kids enough to where, if anyone tried to hurt them I would so hurt them back and try to do it first. So, what then.....is the difference?

I am a bit torn on this issue. Just wish the world were a place where we didn't need torture....really.

[pharoh]

Which brings me to my point HH that sometimes it is a necessary evil.

[Paper Hearts]

Very well said PH, I aggree with the second half, but on the first half I do not. I am all for winning a nation/country/whatever hearts and minds over, but not at the cost of our lives....therefore, if someone is holding back intel that will kill american innocents, then I would do whatever I can to make them talk. At some point in time someone is gonna have to be the bad guy for the sake of self preservation. I would not consider someone evil or wrong for stepping up and doing something bad for the greater of good as long as thier intent were clear. There is always gonna be some prick that is gonna take it to far, thats just how life is, but what would you propose to correct an issue like this. How would you get information from someone without using torture that will save lives? I am curious as to how your methods would be.

It's actually part of my answer that because I'd feel my country's security is at stake, I wouldn't torture a detainee. Two reasons why, non violent methods (persuasion) are more effective than force (coercion) and also that abuse grows the opposition.

[Homicidalheathen]

I wonder if you let peope start torturing where does it stop? Can you be sure they do it only when necessary or does it extend to racially motivated abuse?

[pharoh]

It's actually part of my answer that because I'd feel my country's security is at stake, I wouldn't torture a detainee. Two reasons why, non violent methods (persuasion) are more effective than force (coercion) and also that abuse grows the opposition.

And the moment the enemy finds out you no longer are willing to go to that extreme you will be fighting a losing battle. I will use Lebonan as an example, something I kept up with lol. When you are dealing with an enemy that has that kind of mindset, there is NO reasoning with them, no bargaining with them and no other options.

[pharoh]

I wonder if you let peope start torturing where does it stop? Can you be sure they do it only when necessary or does it extend to racially motivated abuse?

HH - I am sure that all of what you stated above is happening today, but with something like the CIA and other organizations they will not follow "rules". And that is where my dillemma really begins. There isn't a way to structure it. Hince why it will fail in the long run. I am still an advocate of Torture tho, as long as used for the right reasons.

[Paper Hearts]

If you are a terrorist, prepared to sacrifice your life for your cause and believing that any physical harm you endure in the process only martyrs you, then coercion is useless. But you can be tricked into 'talking' if persuasion is the focus method of the interrogation. So, anything a detainee says under coercion is obviously something they would have disclosed under persuasion. The difference is that any admission a prisoner makes through coecion is not valid in a trial against them.

I also base my argument in two possibilities:

1. There is never a terrorist attack again

2. There is an attack again

If there is a terrorist attack again, by torturing people all you can say is 'god damn, we gave up everything we stood for and they still beat us'.

If you haven't tortured people and there is an attack, you can at least say that you haven't let terrorism defeat you.

If there is never a terrorist attack again and you haven't compromised yourself, then you can laugh and dance.

If there is never a terrorist attack again and you have compromised your self (your country) then you have done so for no reason and you have to live with that.