What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Dr.Who]

Here is the thing, there are really only two classifications, either we are in a war, or in a police action. If we are in a war, we need to treat detainees as POWs, and if we are in a police action we need to treat them as criminals.

there is nothing new about having multiple classifications of perps and it has little to do with the state of war or not.

In WWII it was clearly a war. Those who were enemy soldiers were pow's but those who were spies were not pow's, those who were civilian criminals were not pow's, those who were insurgents or resistance fighters were not pow's. so what did we call a civilian who picked up a gun and went onto the battlefield? Certainly not a soldier and when caught not a pow.

In Nam it was a 'police action' and when we caught soldiers in uniform they were prisoners of war.

What they are called is more about who they are than it is about if it is a war or not.

When a member of AQ does not wear a uniform, hides among civilians, but goes out into the battlefield to kill soldiers they are not pow's and they are not non-combatants (non-coms). And if they set bombs on buses it is appropriate to call them terrorists.

So what rights do terrorists have? If they are US citizens then they have rights when tried here. If not then what rights do they have? They have no rights under the constitution, the geneva conventions, the hague conventions, their own constitutions (unless tried by their own gov), etc.

Who should decide what rights they should have when we catch them? Clearly congress should decide this as the legislative branch. So why has not congress made that determination?!!

 

[Dr.Who]

I would only consider two things to be remotely worth it, one is to prevent another major attack on the US, or the location of OBL. Which I highly doubt gained either. In the meantime, the news is out, and the AL-Q recruitment is made that much easier.

From (gasp) CNN:

"The Bush-era interrogation techniques that many view as torture may have yielded important information about terrorists, President Obama's national intelligence director said in an internal memo. High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in a memo to personnel."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/obama.memos/index.html

Waterboarding might not be torture, it was fully vetted and approved by both houses of congress before it happened, it was only done on three AQ members, it revealed real information about who the members of AQ were and the structure of the organization.

The three people it was used on were Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah an AQ operative who gave up everything he knew after 35 seconds total, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who actually planned 911. We did not know he was a mastermind behind 911 until after he was waterboarded - it was a result of the waterboarding. He also told details of numerous other plots against the US and admitted to being part of the beheading of the reporter Daniel Pearl. With the details of the other plots the intelligence agencies could investigate them to stop them if possible.

And the best piece of all:

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

In fact that whole article is worth reading because it spells out just how careful the cia was (and when they stepped over the line) when it waterboarded.

 

[Dr.Who]

Here is another article that is worth reading. It talks about how the decisions were made to classify terrorists as enemy combatants:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/05_johnyoo.shtml

 

[PLC1]

Define torture

And then tell me exactly what it is you are willing to do to get the information needed

Everyone is willing to say we should not torture but no one is willing to say what torture is or isn’t


I don’t think anything we have done was torture

had our government tore out their fingernails, broken bones, cut slashes in them or cut off fingers or starved them, that is torture and I am totally against it

We water board our own men in training to know what to prepare for incase they are captured. Water boarding is not torture

Yelling at them at the top of your lungs is not torture

Don’t let them sleep

Keep bright lights on them

Expose them to extreme hot and cold weather that makes them miserable

Isolate them so they can’t talk to others

Lie to them and trick them and tell them that others already gave up info

I love the box with the caterpillar, that sounded kind of fun really, but it is not torture

Slapping them is not torture but I think it can be dangerous, if you are slapping them and you are getting a adrenalin rush and you are getting frustrated they are not giving up info you might hit instead of slap you could do something that would become torture, if you hit them to hard in the wrong way... I would say we should not slap them even though slapping is not torture it could lead to something that is.

OK, then, rather than just skirt around the practice of torturing prisoners, let's not stop with what we ourselves have prosecuted as torture when others have done it. If there is some doubt that waterboarding, inducing hypothermia, keeping people awake for a week and a half, making them stay in painful positions, scaring them with dogs and bugs, if none of that is torture, and yet we need to torture prisoners to obtain information, then here is what we need to do:

Line up ten or so against the wall. Ask a pertinent question, and say you will shoot a kneecap every thirty seconds until someone answers. Inform the prisoners that, should they give false information, the liar will be shot in both knees, then in the head.

Then start shooting.

It's simple, and, if torture is effective, and if we really don't care what other nations think of us, then that is what we need to do.

Isn't that better than a mushroom cloud over New York?

It might even be better than one over San Francisco, even if the dang liberals who live there protest the actions I've just described.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, then, rather than just skirt around the practice of torturing prisoners, let's not stop with what we ourselves have prosecuted as torture when others have done it. If there is some doubt that waterboarding, inducing hypothermia, keeping people awake for a week and a half, making them stay in painful positions, scaring them with dogs and bugs, if none of that is torture, and yet we need to torture prisoners to obtain information, then here is what we need to do:

Line up ten or so against the wall. Ask a pertinent question, and say you will shoot a kneecap every thirty seconds until someone answers. Inform the prisoners that, should they give false information, the liar will be shot in both knees, then in the head.

Then start shooting.

It's simple, and, if torture is effective, and if we really don't care what other nations think of us, then that is what we need to do.

Isn't that better than a mushroom cloud over New York?

It might even be better than one over San Francisco, even if the dang liberals who live there protest the actions I've just described.

damn liberals not wanting to act like Saddam....

 

[GenSeneca]

You write like a man who is very afraid, so afraid in fact that he is willing to do almost anything in an attempt to assuage that fear.

Here we go again... Another Progressive who comes in casting dispersions on my character rather than dealing with the content of my message.

I stated quite clearly that my interest was not in condoning or excusing torture but to get those who think we did torture to define torture and list specific interrogation techniques they would approve.

Mare is incapable of thinking about this topic, so emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks are all that were offered.

Mare, Perhaps you could answer the two following questions:

1. Should suspects receive Miranda Rights?
2. Should suspects receive Constitutional Rights?

They are yes or no questions, and if you try really hard, you should be able to answer those without attacking my character or wandering off into emotional appeals.

Then 3 is the big one... Provide a list of what interrogation techniques you would find acceptable.

Can we poke people with soft pillows?
Can we seat them in the comfy chair?
Can we raise our voice to them?
Can we put them in a room full of dirty baby diapers?

Give some specifics as to what interrogation techniques you would approve of using.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, then, rather than just skirt around the practice of torturing prisoners, let's not stop with what we ourselves have prosecuted as torture when others have done it. If there is some doubt that waterboarding, inducing hypothermia, keeping people awake for a week and a half, making them stay in painful positions, scaring them with dogs and bugs, if none of that is torture, and yet we need to torture prisoners to obtain information, then here is what we need to do:

Line up ten or so against the wall. Ask a pertinent question, and say you will shoot a kneecap every thirty seconds until someone answers. Inform the prisoners that, should they give false information, the liar will be shot in both knees, then in the head.

Then start shooting.

It's simple, and, if torture is effective, and if we really don't care what other nations think of us, then that is what we need to do.

Isn't that better than a mushroom cloud over New York?

It might even be better than one over San Francisco, even if the dang liberals who live there protest the actions I've just described.

It is better than a mushroom cloud over new york.

But the system (roughly outlined below perhaps with errors) we have is far superior to that:

First we capture them and evaluate to see if they are likely to have any information. If they do we ask them. If they do not answer then we put psychological pressure on them, then mild discomfort, or lie to them, the process gets stepped up gradually and under strict rules and supervision according to plans that were drawn up by a bipartisan committee and does not cross certain lines.

The memos prove that we did just that. Only three of the worst high level people actually received waterboarding, only for 20 seconds at a time, and the last time it happened was in 2005.

 

[GenSeneca]

Bunz, PLC, Pocket and the rest:

1. Clearly groups such as AQ and others have openly, and unmistakably, declared war on the US. They have been attacking American targets, and our allies, around the world for decades. Are we at war? If not, then what are we doing in two countries and elsewhere around the world. If we are in a "Police Action" against terrorism, how is that different from being at war?

2. Define Torture. (Careful, last time I asked PLC to do this he came back with the textbook definition and Waterboarding didn't meet the definition) I have a definition of torture and thats what I use to determine what is, and isn't, torture. People who don't use a definition are likely using emotion and feelings to make the determination on what is and isn't torture.

3. Is Morality a Code? If so, where can that code be found? If not, what then is morality?
-------------------------------------

Dr. Who, I congratulate you for asking why Congress has failed in their duty to classify and define what is taking place, who the "enemy" is, what rights they are entitled to and under what/whose authority. None of what they are currently using passes the smell test... there is no more "terrorism" there are only "man caused disasters", we are not in a "Global War on Terror" we are in an "Oversees Contingency Operation", detainees are no longer "enemy combatants" but have become "disaffected community organizers*".... And all of these new terms are non-binding, open to interpretation and void of any static definitions.

*That was sarcasm, we all know the only people we detain are innocent farmers.

 

[BigRob]

1. if water-boarding is listed in the 'Geneva Convention' as a form of torture why did we use this against others whom we deemed a terrorist, when they haven't had their due process for proving that they are/were a terrorist.

Water-boarding is not mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. Further, nothing in the Geneva Conventions entitles someone to "due process" either.

3. Justification for physical/mental abuse can be said by any/both sides of the conflict...why, why, why would we think that it is 'allowed' when we have a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist attack on our soil. IT IS NOT NOR WILL IT EVER BE APPROPRIATE!!! IMO

We "thought it was allowed" because under the law that governed the detainees it was allowed.

4. We should never stoop to the rational thought that "well, they do worse things to our people" as justification for allowing water-boarding to be an OK method of interrogation. NOPE, NOT EVER...IMHO

Kind of like the response to why is Obama spending so much money? Response: Bush spent a lot.

Anyway, that aside, not many people are making the case that the sole reason was they do worse things to us. No, the reason was because we got information from it (confirmed by both parties) and that it was not illegal and it was allowed under all treaties we are a party to.

 

[PLC1]

Bunz, PLC, Pocket and the rest:

1. Clearly groups such as AQ and others have openly, and unmistakably, declared war on the US. They have been attacking American targets, and our allies, around the world for decades. Are we at war? If not, then what are we doing in two countries and elsewhere around the world. If we are in a "Police Action" against terrorism, how is that different from being at war?

2. Define Torture. (Careful, last time I asked PLC to do this he came back with the textbook definition and Waterboarding didn't meet the definition) I have a definition of torture and thats what I use to determine what is, and isn't, torture. People who don't use a definition are likely using emotion and feelings to make the determination on what is and isn't torture.

3. Is Morality a Code? If so, where can that code be found? If not, what then is morality?
-------------------------------------

Dr. Who, I congratulate you for asking why Congress has failed in their duty to classify and define what is taking place, who the "enemy" is, what rights they are entitled to and under what/whose authority. None of what they are currently using passes the smell test... there is no more "terrorism" there are only "man caused disasters", we are not in a "Global War on Terror" we are in an "Oversees Contingency Operation", detainees are no longer "enemy combatants" but have become "disaffected community organizers*".... And all of these new terms are non-binding, open to interpretation and void of any static definitions.

*That was sarcasm, we all know the only people we detain are innocent farmers.

If we are at war, then the enemy we have captured are POW. As such, they are entitled to the Geneva Accords.

NO, they don't need to be Mirandized, nor do they come under the Constitution necessarily. They are to be treated as POW, as every civilized nation in the world has agreed to treat POW. Making up a new term for them that strips them of all of their rights is cynical and immoral.

Is waterboarding allowed under the Geneva Accords? If so, then I suppose it's OK. Did we prosecute Japanese soldiers for war crimes for having used waterboarding during WWII? If so, then we should not employ the same methods ourselves.

Now, we keep hearing how only three people have ever been waterboarded in the war against Iraq. Just three bad guys, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that anyone who has been paying attention knows that there has been far more torture than the pro torture voices are willing to admit.

 

[BigRob]

If we are at war, then the enemy we have captured are POW. As such, they are entitled to the Geneva Accords.

Not according to the actual Geneva Conventions.

NO, they don't need to be Mirandized, nor do they come under the Constitution necessarily. They are to be treated as POW, as every civilized nation in the world has agreed to treat POW. Making up a new term for them that strips them of all of their rights is cynical and immoral.

Every civilized nation has agreed to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We did just that when we denied them POW status.

Is waterboarding allowed under the Geneva Accords? If so, then I suppose it's OK.

It is up for interpretation.

Now, we keep hearing how only three people have ever been waterboarded in the war against Iraq. Just three bad guys, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that anyone who has been paying attention knows that there has been far more torture than the pro torture voices are willing to admit.

Like sleep deprivation? Or putting someone in a box with a bug? That is your definition of torture? In that case, I hope the statute of limitations has not run out and I can go back and sue my colleges for assigning all that work and causing sleep deprivation and making me live in a tiny dorm room with bugs.

 

[PLC1]

Not according to the actual Geneva Conventions.



Every civilized nation has agreed to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We did just that when we denied them POW status.



It is up for interpretation.



Like sleep deprivation? Or putting someone in a box with a bug? That is your definition of torture? In that case, I hope the statute of limitations has not run out and I can go back and sue my colleges for assigning all that work and causing sleep deprivation and making me live in a tiny dorm room with bugs.

Waterboarding as described by the expert in torture techniques, John McCain:

“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.

I suppose if you really want to argue that waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique, then you're in good company: that of Pol Pot and the Chinese Communists. McCain might not be your ideal of a conservative, but I'll take his political philosophy over either of the other two.

Now, do you agree with this sort of "enhanced interrogation?"

Or this?

It doesn't look to me like sleep deprivation or torture via bugs.

This country should never support this sort of thing, ever, under any circumstances. As a citizen of a free nation, I am appalled by such things, and you should be too. There is no way any of this can be justified. It is the sort of things the cockroaches we're supposed to be fighting do, not what civilized nations do, ever.

 

[Andy]

Waterboarding as described by the expert in torture techniques, John McCain:



I suppose if you really want to argue that waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique, then you're in good company: that of Pol Pot and the Chinese Communists. McCain might not be your ideal of a conservative, but I'll take his political philosophy over either of the other two.

Now, do you agree with this sort of "enhanced interrogation?"

Or this?

It doesn't look to me like sleep deprivation or torture via bugs.

This country should never support this sort of thing, ever, under any circumstances. As a citizen of a free nation, I am appalled by such things, and you should be too. There is no way any of this can be justified. It is the sort of things the cockroaches we're supposed to be fighting do, not what civilized nations do, ever.

You are changing the issue.

These are not interrogations. Nor are they supported by our government ever. Nor is this something authorized by higher ups.

Mixing two completely different topics to try and justify a single point, is something liberals do. Are you now trying to be one?

What me and BigRob are discussing, is the use of enhanced interrogation, in order to get information that will lead to the prevention of terrorist attacks, or to the capture of known, and wanted, terrorist.

What you are referring to is the outright abuse of prisoners by out of control military personnel. No one is going to defend that, least of all us. The military rightfully court marshaled them, some went to prison, some dishonorable discharged, others fined, all relieved of command, and all convicted of dereliction of duty.

Now, you need to determine what topic you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss soldiers torturing prisoners randomly without purpose or reason, and without government approval? If yes, then no I'm not for that. Discussion over.

Or do you wish to discuss the use of enhanced interrogation, to obtain from known terrorists, information that could save lives, prevent terrorist attacks, and capture Al Qaeda operatives? If yes, then yes I am, thus far, in favor of that.

 

[PLC1]

 

[PLC1]

You are changing the issue.

These are not interrogations. Nor are they supported by our government ever. Nor is this something authorized by higher ups.

Mixing two completely different topics to try and justify a single point, is something liberals do. Are you now trying to be one?

What me and BigRob are discussing, is the use of enhanced interrogation, in order to get information that will lead to the prevention of terrorist attacks, or to the capture of known, and wanted, terrorist.

What you are referring to is the outright abuse of prisoners by out of control military personnel. No one is going to defend that, least of all us. The military rightfully court marshaled them, some went to prison, some dishonorable discharged, others fined, all relieved of command, and all convicted of dereliction of duty.

Now, you need to determine what topic you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss soldiers torturing prisoners randomly without purpose or reason, and without government approval? If yes, then no I'm not for that. Discussion over.

Or do you wish to discuss the use of enhanced interrogation, to obtain from known terrorists, information that could save lives, prevent terrorist attacks, and capture Al Qaeda operatives? If yes, then yes I am, thus far, in favor of that.

OK, fair enough.

Are you ready to show that only three prisoners, the worst of the worst, were ever waterboarded?

Are you ready to show that waterboarding was the worst that was actually authorized?

We already know you don't agree with John McCain on the issue of waterboarding. I could take a cheap shot, and say that means you must agree with Pol Pot, but I won't stoop to that.