Bush White House still Actively Championing Torture

[Soldier]

...you're a little bit off there...

[Westley]

Where, my Republicana friend?

[Westley]

You do realize that the only information in and out of that place are the edited letters of prisoners to their family? And that no reporters are allowed inside?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Westley

Where, my Republicana friend?

Not seeing the light of day over in Gitmo? They're outdoor holding areas. Hitler treating his POWs better? Bull****, straight up. They're better than drug dealers and this is just as bad as the westward expansion a few years ago? Also loads of crap.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Westley

You do realize that the only information in and out of that place are the edited letters of prisoners to their family? And that no reporters are allowed inside?

...your point being...?

[Westley]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Not seeing the light of day over in Gitmo? They're outdoor holding areas. Hitler treating his POWs better? Bull****, straight up. They're better than drug dealers and this is just as bad as the westward expansion a few years ago? Also loads of crap.

They think you're evil and you think they're evil. Neither side, believe it or not, is right, although that's not something they're going to tell Soldiers. You're both just soldiers and you're either helping, conquerinig, or defending, not all at once. Physical Torture can be dealt with, but boredom, hunger, infections, and mind games cannot. Most torture makes a few moments hell. This stuff makes life hell. After over 30 suicide attempts in
6 months, they stopped counting. If they had trials it would be one thing, but there is no proof these people are who we believe they are.

[Soldier]

Their side takes hostages and beheads them. Their side attacks civilians. Their side arms civilians, including children. Their side abuses and oppresses women. How dare you try to equate our soldiers to these people?

Where were these suicide attempts, and where is your information from?

[jeff]

The other side is a bunch of SOBs. That doesn't justify any of our side being an SOB.

Google "Abu Ghraib suicide" and spend a few minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614905.shtml - GIs force detainees to jump off a bridge, one dies. Also mentioned other deaths while in custody: one due to axphyxiation, and reopened investigations of other deaths previously listed as natural causes. This sounds more like homicide to me...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in625354.shtml - 'Suicide bigs spiked at Gitmo'. Multiple attempts. Also multiple links to other abuse stories and background. Interesting, that 2,000 were released, so some of the people being detained apparently were judged to not be terrorists and let free. I sure hope they weren't tortured, huh? (apologizers for torture always trot ot the scenario of the terrorist with a secret that could save lives: but the reality includes people who got swept up and may not even be enemy, let alone have any secrets.)

There's plenty more. Go look.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Westley

P.S. Having your arms twisted backwards till they pop (WW2) is nothing compared to Sensory Deprivation. I know, because I had it performed on me.

Hate to say it, but have you ever had your arms twisted backwards till they pop?

You're wrong about Hitler and the POWs. All of the Axis powers treated POWs badly (as did the Allies in some cases, but that's an argument for another time...). There were massacres, torturings, some were put into concentration camps, etc. Their stories simply aren't as public as the Iraqi war POW mistreatments.


Meave Mari, not all Muslims are willing to give their life for their religion, their family, etc. Those are only the extremists. Extremists here exist as well, they're just not willing to put their lives on their beleifs.

Westley, I'm not sure what your point is in these last few posts. What are you trying to say?

Also, I can't say I've had to endure either physical or mental torture. But either one done by someone who knows what they're doing is neither short, painless, or able to be dealt with.


One more thing. Suicides in a prison don't prove mistreatment. The terrorists might be killing themselves so they don't talk. Remember, some of these prisoners are actually suicide bombers. They are quite willing to give their lives for their cause.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Westley

They think you're evil and you think they're evil. Neither side, believe it or not, is right, although that's not something they're going to tell Soldiers. You're both just soldiers and you're either helping, conquerinig, or defending, not all at once. Physical Torture can be dealt with, but boredom, hunger, infections, and mind games cannot. Most torture makes a few moments hell. This stuff makes life hell. After over 30 suicide attempts in
6 months, they stopped counting. If they had trials it would be one thing, but there is no proof these people are who we believe they are.

It's true that our soldiers are not perfect, soldiers never are in any war. But we are very, very far from sinking to their level.

If we wanted to, for example, we could say that every time there is a terrorist attack, we nuke an Iraqi city at random. Just completely flatten it, and everyone living there. And show the footage on Al-Jazeera. I bet the terrorist attacks would slow down pretty fast. We could also outlaw any cars in Iraq. We could make a curfew, and shoot on sight anyone in violation. All these would slow down terrorist attacks considerably. But we have not sunk to the level of the terrorists, not in the least.

[Inquartata]

I have a question.

People keep reiterating the bromide that torture produces only bad or worthless intelligence. We blithely accept that statement as though it's true, when in fact it's just the premise of an argument, and one which I don't think bears much scrutiny. So my question is: what is the proof that it is ineffectual or counterproductive?

A) If in fact it was an unproductive practice, why would it continue to be employed? ( OK, two questions. )

B) The logic of "the guilty subject will make stuff up, so it gets us nothing" is patently flawed. If he makes stuff up, the "stuff" gets checked, and the subject knows this, and knows if it doesn't check out he's going to be in for even worse. The innocent person will in fact be in a Catch 22, but the guilty one is likely to divulge what he knows if the torture is sophisticated enough.

C) Some particulary successful regimes have demonstrably used torture effectively. ( Egypt all but wiped out the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in just this way, and there is a reason why other countries sometimes threaten subjects with turning them over to the Egyptians as a means---an often successful means---of interrogation. )

None of this in fact addresses the moral angle. But let's not just swallow without examination unlikely premises like "oh, torture doesn't work" as bulwarks to the moral argument....

[mrbiggs]

I don't know if it was repetitive, but I certainly mentioned the bromide, so I feel qualified to respond...

Torture doesn't always fail to produce correct information. I'm sure that, actually, it reasonably often does. But there's two problems. One is that sometimes, it doesn't produce correct information. What if the terrorists train themselves to "confess" to the same terrorist attacks, lets say, every month, so both Iraq and the U.S. are constantly in a panic? The second problem is that these are not average people being tortured. These are people who are quite ready to give up their lives for their cause. And I would guess that they would therefore be somewhat more resiliant to torture.

Yes, torture is effective over a large scale, as was done in Egypt. But as I posted before, if we wanted to, we could say that every time there is a terrorist attack, we nuke an Iraqi city at random. Just completely flatten it, and everyone living there. And show the footage on Al-Jazeera. I bet the terrorist attacks would slow down pretty fast. We could also outlaw any cars in Iraq. We could make a curfew, and shoot on sight anyone in violation. All these would slow down terrorist attacks considerably. But unfortunately, in the U.S., we beleive that it is wrong to torture people at all, and especially without trying them in court. We beleive that civilian casualties are to be avioded as much as possible. If we wanted to, we could stop Iraq's terrorist attacks very, very quickly. But unfortunately, we are limited by our own morals.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I have a question.

People keep reiterating the bromide that torture produces only bad or worthless intelligence. We blithely accept that statement as though it's true, when in fact it's just the premise of an argument, and one which I don't think bears much scrutiny. So my question is: what is the proof that it is ineffectual or counterproductive?
{snip}

Well, according the the Army's Interrogation Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

--Philistine

[Maeve_Mari]

"Not only is torture of prisoners immoral, illegal and violative of American values, but as John McCain -- who qualifies as an expert witness on the subject -- told The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg: "(T)his mistreatment of prisoners and torture is not productive. ... You don't get information that's usable from people under torture, because they tell you what you want to hear."

That's a pragmatic case against abusing detainees and violating the Geneva Convention. John McCain's most compelling argument is direct and honorable: 'We distinguish ourselves from our enemies by the treatment of our enemies." Amen. "

[Gav]

I'd like to ask Soldier a question. When does putting people into uncomfortable situations and then offering them [conditional] relief stop being interrogation and become torture? From what I've read on the subject of torture that is the definition of torture. Thankfully I've never had to endure it.

As an aside, there was a reality TV show on here in the UK recently: SAS; are you tough enough?

For part of that, the SAS interrogators played white noise and made them stand or sit uncomfortably. 99% cracked within a few hours. Was very interesting viewing. But it was clear that some didn't actually know who they were, what they were saying and who they were talking to. These people consented and knew that they could walk out at any time.

2 interesting notes:

The winner of the first series was a Scot who refused to speak at all following 'interrogation'. He went on to win quite a lot of praise from the SAS guys - this guy even swam 1.5 miles in full kit by doggy paddle because he couldn't swim.

The most effective method I saw for extracting the truth was the use of a chocolate bar. The interrogee chatted away for hours telling the SAS guys anything they wanted to know. Very funny actually.

[Soldier]

Chocolate bar - as I said, all manner of psychological tricks.

I'm not saying coercion is the best method. I'm saying it works, and should not be ruled out. Finally, I draw the line between coercion and torture at pain. There is a difference between discomfort and pain; if something is not painful, it is not torture. Sleep deprivation, standing for hours with your arms straight out to your sides, being forced to stand for long times with a rifle (14 lbs) held straight out in front of you...these are extremely uncomfortable. But not painful.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

But there's two problems. One is that sometimes, it doesn't produce correct information.

True also of simple non-violent interrogation. For that matter, true sometimes of forensic investigative techniques having nothing to do with questioning human beings at all. Should we eschew those as well on the grounds that they do not produce 100% reliable results every time?

The second problem is that these are not average people being tortured. These are people who are quite ready to give up their lives for their cause. And I would guess that they would therefore be somewhat more resiliant to torture.

It's a heroic myth that true torture can be resisted or beaten by a man of resolve. Modern techniques involving the use of drugs as well as pain and confusion can break anyone, given time and proper application.

And again---if a subject can delay for a time answering questions under torture, he can delay indefinitely under conventional interrogative methods. If the purpose of interrogation is to get information, and to do so in a timely manner, torture will often be the most, not the least, efficient option---the opposite of the assessment so often expressed today.

unfortunately, we are limited by our own morals.

I don't know that I'd say "unfortunately"; but I asked only about the practical aspects of torture as a policy. The moral aspect is something else again, and IMO is the one valid reason to forego the practice.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Well, according the the Army's Interrogation Manual

Yes. A view informed by the moral and legal precepts of the American experience---a rationalization, I'd say.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

True also of simple non-violent interrogation. For that matter, true sometimes of forensic investigative techniques having nothing to do with questioning human beings at all. Should we eschew those as well on the grounds that they do not produce 100% reliable results every time?

No, but for violent methods to be used, methods that go against some of our basic morals as a country, the results should be very, very accurate. So accurate that it's obvious that it's the only way to get information.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It's a heroic myth that true torture can be resisted or beaten by a man of resolve. Modern techniques involving the use of drugs as well as pain and co