What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

But seriously... I would like to know 3 things:

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

No

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

No.

3. What Can we do to get information from suspects?

Whatever is deemed necessary. Waterboarding is fine, targeting their religion is fine, targeting their family is fine.

A Russian reaction to the kidnappings that were common place in the 70s-80s was to find a relative of the person who kidnapped the Russian and mail parts back to the family. Russian people were not kidnapped after that.

While I think we can use vague notions of family to get more information than that, nothing should be "off the table" so to speak.

All of this assumes that these people are not US citizens, and there is credible (must be credible) intelligence that they are involved in a plot or have good information.
 
Werbung:
Whatever is deemed necessary. Waterboarding is fine, targeting their religion is fine, targeting their family is fine.

Does it not depend upon what information you need, the timeline involved and the character of person in captivity plus a thousand other variables as to what you do, how you do it and when? For example waterboarding is pretty crude and quite frankly of extremely limited use on anybody - especially if they've had any training for; one thing you can manage the information and use that against an interrogator.

Psychology always seems to have had the best results. For example rapport building over braun is preferable which I would suggest means that when dealing with Islamic terrorists you would not want to slam their religion becuase all you do is entrench their oppinion against you. As an interrorgator you want them to open up to you, when you take them into the interrogation booth they expect to be physically tortured but by using a cool and intelligent approach you put them off, wrong foot them so you build upon that...... this was how Zarqawi was brought down by turning his closest supporters into giving him away!

......anyway Rob, I'd defy you to keep a secret from my mother-in-law.......;)
 
Waterboarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, stress positions, use of harmless insects, slamming detainees into false walls, grabbing of faces, and many other non-lethal methods that do no permanent damage have all been deemed torture... So... What interrogation techniques will the squeamish hand-wringers allow?

I suppose if we eliminate techniques for which we have prosecuted enemy soldiers on war crimes charges, that would be a good place to start. After all, if a particular action is a war crime, and is torture, when another nation does it, it should be the same when the US does it, don't you think?
 
Does it not depend upon what information you need, the timeline involved and the character of person in captivity plus a thousand other variables as to what you do, how you do it and when? For example waterboarding is pretty crude and quite frankly of extremely limited use on anybody - especially if they've had any training for; one thing you can manage the information and use that against an interrogator.

Sure it will depend on many issues, I am simply saying we should not decide to limit our options because we might be presented with a situation where waterboarding, for example, would be critical.

Psychology always seems to have had the best results. For example rapport building over braun is preferable which I would suggest means that when dealing with Islamic terrorists you would not want to slam their religion becuase all you do is entrench their oppinion against you. As an interrorgator you want them to open up to you, when you take them into the interrogation booth they expect to be physically tortured but by using a cool and intelligent approach you put them off, wrong foot them so you build upon that......

I agree that this is an important element, assuming there is time. I would dispute that targeting religion firms their resolve. I am not saying just bash their religion, but look at GITMO for example. When detainees arrived they were given a copy of the Koran, that was a huge mistake, because that entrenched their resolve more than anything. You can go about it in small ways outside of coming in and saying "Islam is death" or something like that.

this was how Zarqawi was brought down by turning his closest supporters into giving him away!

He was brought down because he bombed Amman and turned the people and government of Jordon against his cause in rapid succession. His supporters gave him up because it was either face real torture (in Jordon) and then die, or give him up.

......anyway Rob, I'd defy you to keep a secret from my mother-in-law.......;)

Everyone has a breaking point. ;)
 
I suppose if we eliminate techniques for which we have prosecuted enemy soldiers on war crimes charges, that would be a good place to start. After all, if a particular action is a war crime, and is torture, when another nation does it, it should be the same when the US does it, don't you think?

We waterboard our own soldiers as part of training. Does this mean we commit war crimes against our own soldiers when we train them? Seems dubious.
 
I dont disagree with your notion when it comes to Miranda rights. That is an entirely different scenario. Nor do I think they need to be given the same rights under the US Constitution, but they should be provided the same rights and treatment is called for under the various treaties we are signators to.

Whatever is deemed necessary. Waterboarding is fine, targeting their religion is fine, targeting their family is fine.

A Russian reaction to the kidnappings that were common place in the 70s-80s was to find a relative of the person who kidnapped the Russian and mail parts back to the family. Russian people were not kidnapped after that.

While I think we can use vague notions of family to get more information than that, nothing should be "off the table" so to speak.
This is where you lost me. Because the Soviets did it, doesnt make it right, in fact I think it is morally reprehensible that we would undertake such actions. America should take the high ground.
All of this assumes that these people are not US citizens, and there is credible (must be credible) intelligence that they are involved in a plot or have good information.
Well credible intelligence is, well often times questionable, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt. But Ill change the course here, and ask why Americans should be excluded? Should we have water boarded Terry Nichols the day before the OKC bombing?
 
Bunz, PLC and Pocket,

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?


I also notice that you guys, despite my request, prefer to talk about what we shouldn't do and why we shouldn't do it...

If someone asked you how to operate a computer, and all you had to tell them was what they shouldn't do and why they shouldn't do it that way... that person would be left to figure out what the "right" way was all by themselves. Inevitably, at some point, that person would screw up and you'd be right there to chew them out for doing it wrong.

Can you not yet see my point behind asking that you not bother with what not to do? Are you beginning to understand why I asked that you give specifics as to what we CAN do?

Now as to some nonsense that keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed.... (more questions I don't get answers to)

The Moral High Ground and Moral Authority... Who's morality? Is my morality the same as yours? Is the American morality the same morality other countries ascribe to? Can any of you define morality? I bet you guys can't give answers to those questions that the others would agree with but I bet you could all give me a laundry list of what you consider immoral...

Our Interrogation methods put our troops at risk of being treated the same way by the enemy... This line of thinking is just wrong on so many levels but if it were true, I'm quite confident our troops would rather be treated the way we treat detainees than the way our middle eastern enemies have always treated our troops and civilians.

Additionally, this argument might hold some weight if we were fighting the European countries but I would not expect Communist or Islamic countries to hesitate using horrific forms of torture on our troops regardless of how we treated their captured fighters. Europeans have some western sense of human rights, Communist and Islamic countries do not share the same sense of human rights. We could use the 5 star hotel treatment on the people we capture and, if caught, our troops would still be tortured.

The information gained is rarely, if ever, useful in any way...
From the New York Times (of all places):
Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

Whether it was worth it or not is another question. Since we don't know exactly what information was gained, any position you take on it would be based on your gut feeling and not an informed opinion based on the facts.
 
I suppose if we eliminate techniques for which we have prosecuted enemy soldiers on war crimes charges, that would be a good place to start. After all, if a particular action is a war crime, and is torture, when another nation does it, it should be the same when the US does it, don't you think?

I agree. We should not be doing things that we would object to if the tables were turned.
 
I dont disagree with your notion when it comes to Miranda rights. That is an entirely different scenario. Nor do I think they need to be given the same rights under the US Constitution, but they should be provided the same rights and treatment is called for under the various treaties we are signators to.

Well according to the Geneva Conventions they certainly were not POW's. At best they would be considered "unprivileged combatants" which basically means we can do whatever we want to them according to our own domestic laws. Since what we did, at the time was perfectly acceptable under our domestic laws, I fail to see a problem with the way we treated them.

This is where you lost me. Because the Soviets did it, doesnt make it right, in fact I think it is morally reprehensible that we would undertake such actions. America should take the high ground.

Not saying that we should undertake that action, just pointing out an alternative path other nations take in response, and one that has worked mind you. I could not disagree more that America should "take the high ground." I think the manner that we conduct ourselves (even with the so called "torture") we have been leaps and bounds above anyone else in the moral department. I think we have taken and continue to take the moral high ground even with actions such as waterboarding.

Well credible intelligence is, well often times questionable, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, this is true, but it is all you ever have.

But Ill change the course here, and ask why Americans should be excluded? Should we have water boarded Terry Nichols the day before the OKC bombing?

No. Americans should be excluded because we are guaranteed certain rights under our Constitutional protections, such as a trial and a presumption of innocence etc. Foreigners (especially those we picked up fighting against us and with known ties to terrorism) do not have that protection under the Constitution in my view. This is the distinction in my view, even if you are treating them under domestic law, they will not be entitled to certain protections that US citizens would be.
 
I would point out that because of the 20 seconds of water on the face of a mere three leaders of AQ we got real information that all the intelligence agencies of the world failed to get that actually resulted in the capture of more AQ leaders and stopped more events like 911 in which thousands of Americans died.
 
I came out before and said that clearly waterboarding was torture. I even changed my mind after reading what others said to arrive at that conclusion. But after the release of the memos I am not so sure.

Putting a bag over a persons head and dunking them for 20 seconds at most with no expectation that any water would get into the lungs does not sound like torture any more.

The memos went a long way to prove that so called torture was rarely used (about 3 times), was used judiciously, and was used with effectiveness every time it was used resulting in further captures of real bad guys.

Waterboarding can be described in such a way that it sounds like torture but it can also be described in such a way that it does not. The way it was described in the memos that depict what actually happened do not sound like torture.

3 times? they did it to one 2 of them more then 100 times each...over months...how does that not tell you its not effective...and what info did we get, and how do we know its true? you dont.
 
3 times? they did it to one 2 of them more then 100 times each...over months...how does that not tell you its not effective...and what info did we get, and how do we know its true? you dont.

Well there are released memos describing our tactics (which is hardly torture) and then there are leaked memos and statements from both sides that we got effective intelligence from it. So which side can you believe? It seems up in the air.
 
No



No.



Whatever is deemed necessary. Waterboarding is fine, targeting their religion is fine, targeting their family is fine.

A Russian reaction to the kidnappings that were common place in the 70s-80s was to find a relative of the person who kidnapped the Russian and mail parts back to the family. Russian people were not kidnapped after that.

While I think we can use vague notions of family to get more information than that, nothing should be "off the table" so to speak.

All of this assumes that these people are not US citizens, and there is credible (must be credible) intelligence that they are involved in a plot or have good information.

And if some other nation did this to US Citizens...I am sure you would be fine with it right?
 
I agree. We should not be doing things that we would object to if the tables were turned.

Nor should we be doing things that we prosecuted when the tables were turned.

Posted by Genseca:

Bunz, PLC and Pocket,

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

They should have the same rights as POW. Inventing a new term that means that they have no rights at all is reprehensible.

I also notice that you guys, despite my request, prefer to talk about what we shouldn't do and why we shouldn't do it...

If someone asked you how to operate a computer, and all you had to tell them was what they shouldn't do and why they shouldn't do it that way... that person would be left to figure out what the "right" way was all by themselves. Inevitably, at some point, that person would screw up and you'd be right there to chew them out for doing it wrong.

Can you not yet see my point behind asking that you not bother with what not to do? Are you beginning to understand why I asked that you give specifics as to what we CAN do?

What can we do? We can do anything that is within the scope of the Geneva Convention.
 
Werbung:
Does it not depend upon what information you need, the timeline involved and the character of person in captivity plus a thousand other variables as to what you do, how you do it and when? For example waterboarding is pretty crude and quite frankly of extremely limited use on anybody - especially if they've had any training for; one thing you can manage the information and use that against an interrogator.

Psychology always seems to have had the best results. For example rapport building over braun is preferable which I would suggest means that when dealing with Islamic terrorists you would not want to slam their religion becuase all you do is entrench their oppinion against you. As an interrorgator you want them to open up to you, when you take them into the interrogation booth they expect to be physically tortured but by using a cool and intelligent approach you put them off, wrong foot them so you build upon that...... this was how Zarqawi was brought down by turning his closest supporters into giving him away!

......anyway Rob, I'd defy you to keep a secret from my mother-in-law.......;)

no you evil liberal, all your suggesting is what most CIA and Military people have already said, and you fail to violate any laws. how dare you
 
Back
Top