What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Pandora]

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.

What kind of crap is this for a reply? Where in my post did I say I was for shooting the knee caps off of anyone? Your post is pretty crappy; you are insinuating I am for some pretty sick and sadistic stuff that I never said I was for. But if you feel good about it then nothing else matters!

 

[BigRob]

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

Do you want me to post politician links saying it is not torture? This will get us nowhere.

Further, waterboarding is part of the special forces training. Are you telling me we torture our own soldiers when we train them?

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.

Or I can be in the company of the US government (many top officials) and the US special forces.

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.

No, it looks like a case of people who violated their regulations and were then tried for it. This is not the norm and you know it. I also did not see in the so called "torture" memos saying those techniques were acceptable, perhaps you can point me to the line.

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.

Maybe we should tell that the families of the few thousand dead people we would have on our hands after LA was hit. Maybe we could tell it to the families of the would-be victims of the London airline plot instead?

I am sure they would all just love to hear how their dignity was kept intact while their family members were obliterated. Further, waterboarding the masterminds of 9/11 is not torture. If it is, then we torture our own soldiers all the time. We are outraged for waterboarding three known terrorists, but doing it to our own soldiers is OK?

 

[BigRob]

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.

What we are prepared to show is that the so-called "torture" memos that have been released pretty much showed (to me at least) that the US does not, and has not, tortured.

 

[Pandora]

Do you want me to post politician links saying it is not torture? This will get us nowhere.

Further, waterboarding is part of the special forces training. Are you telling me we torture our own soldiers when we train them?



Or I can be in the company of the US government (many top officials) and the US special forces.



No, it looks like a case of people who violated their regulations and were then tried for it. This is not the norm and you know it. I also did not see in the so called "torture" memos saying those techniques were acceptable, perhaps you can point me to the line.



Maybe we should tell that the families of the few thousand dead people we would have on our hands after LA was hit. Maybe we could tell it to the families of the would-be victims of the London airline plot instead?

I am sure they would all just love to hear how their dignity was kept intact while their family members were obliterated. Further, waterboarding the masterminds of 9/11 is not torture. If it is, then we torture our own soldiers all the time. We are outraged for waterboarding three known terrorists, but doing it to our own soldiers is OK?

Let’s just rename water boarding to Underwater Contingency operation and that should make them happy about the treatment of the enemy.

As for the treatment of our own troops, you can keep it with the original name because I don’t think they are concerned about them one way or the other unless they are a danger or potential threat to our enemy

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

People who resort to violence are frightened people, it's not an attack on you, it's a statement of fact.

Before I answered your questions I wanted to see where you stand on the subject of torture and the ugly truth is that you have the same pussy attitude that you are banging liberals/progressives for: you won't do what's actually necessary, all you're willing to do wimpy stuff, so what makes you any better than the rest of us?

If your willingness to hurt people a certain amount makes you a better American or a better man, then doesn't it stand to reason that someone who is willing to do the REALLY BAD things is a better American yet, a better man than you?

Personally, I'm with George Washington and Jesus, I don't think that torture is good or useful. As to what I'm willing to do: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

[BigRob]

People who resort to violence are frightened people, it's not an attack on you, it's a statement of fact.

Can I assume from this statement that all wars are a direct result of some form of fear?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Can I assume from this statement that all wars are a direct result of some form of fear?

Absolutely.

 

[Andy]

OK, fair enough.

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

That's what the memos say. That's what the CIA says. Do you have evidence we did it to others? I have yet to see anything suggesting that.

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

Waterboarding was shown to all the top leaders in Congress prior to use. Hillary saw it. Pelosi saw it. Dozens of others all toured the facility prior to it being done, and approved.

Now if you have evidence that suggests other forms of torture were official sanctioned by our government, that would be a legitimate concern to me, and I'd want to know more about what was done by whom.

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.

You just did, but I'm pretty thick skinned. Torture is a loose term. People tend to define it in many ways. I remember a state prison inmate trying to claim that because they couldn't get new clothes (theirs had cuts and holes in them) and because the food was poor (and apparently room service was poor) that they were being tortured!

For me, I define torture differently than most people do. To me, torture is determined by the extent of real physical harm, and to the purpose.

For example, when I was a young boy, my father spanked me. How much real physical harm was there? Zero. What was the purpose? To teach me not to do wrong things (which he was wildly successful at using this method). This is not torture.

Yet I've met people who's fathers hit them. How much physical harm was there? Tons. bruises, stitches, you name it. What was the purpose? To fulfill the evil self-gratifying feeling of harming another person.

That is what the event you pointed to above was about. That to me, was torture, and a horrible breach of acceptable action.

But waterboarding as administered by the CIA, did no physical harm. It simply caused a choke reflex, and invoked a natural fear of drowning. It's purpose was to do exactly what it did, gain information that saved lives and prevent terrorist acts. That's not torture to me, and is perfectly acceptable, provided a better solution is not found.

I don't see waterboarding as any worse than all the other interrogation techniques used. Like stripping someone naked, dousing them with water, and putting them in a tiny cubical cell at 40 degrees. Should we ban that? And after we ban all the ways in which we can interrogate someone, who are you going to blame when more Americans die in a terrorist attack?

 

[Andy]

Let’s just rename water boarding to Underwater Contingency operation and that should make them happy about the treatment of the enemy.

As for the treatment of our own troops, you can keep it with the original name because I don’t think they are concerned about them one way or the other unless they are a danger or potential threat to our enemy

Like no longer using enemy combatants! Haha! You are such a stitch!

 

[GenSeneca]

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

They didn't sign onto the accords and they do not follow the rules laid out in the accords. They have done nothing to be "entitled" to POW status laid out in the accords...

Now: Define Torture

While you're ignoring my request to define the term torture, here's something you might want to read... The following is what we are barred from doing to POW's according to the Geneva Convention:

PART II

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

That leaves us with the term humane:
1. characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed

If we are going to give detainees the incredibly unearned title of POW, we'd better get busy reserving rooms in 5 star hotels with soft cushions and comfy chairs... anything less would be inhumane.

 

[GenSeneca]

Before I answered your questions I wanted to see where you stand on the subject of torture

You still didn't answer. Here they are again:

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

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

I'd like to add a fourth:

4. Define Torture.

the ugly truth is that you have the same pussy attitude that you are banging liberals/progressives for: you won't do what's actually necessary, all you're willing to do wimpy stuff, so what makes you any better than the rest of us?

I don't consider it torture, you do.

I have a definition of Torture, you have a concept of torture that is not clearly defined. PLC, who is arguing with me tooth and nail, is a Pragmatic, Libertarian, Conservative so I'm certainly not singling out liberals or Progressives.

To borrow an analogy:

I think Abortion kills the life of an individual... PLC does not.

I have a definition of individual to back that up, he has a concept of what an individual is that justifies his position.

In both cases, abortion and torture, the divide is between those who are operating on specific definitions and those who operate on conceptions that cannot be satisfactorily defined.

Law is based on definitions. Feelings and emotion are based on concepts.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If your going to sit here and try to say that "Human Treatment" must now mean 5 star hotels, then this is a pointless debate.

And Can you please list all things I cant do to someone? Just to show you how dumb your question of what can you do to one is..

can I shoot them in the head?
Arm?
Leg?
neck?
can I knife them?
cut off there head?
stab them with a stick?
poke out a eye...
Name them all, anything you fail to say I will guess you mean is legal...

 

[Bunz]

We stopped waterboarding when they ruled we were not to do it. Other than that, they really only ruled that we needed to charge the detainees with something, not that what we were doing was a violation of any treaty.

Exactly, we are not to do it. Because it is torture and not in line with how Americans should be conducting themselves. By stating this, it leads me to believe that you conceide that waterboarding it in fact torture.

Europe is more than happy to let the US carry the load. What would the outcry be if a US citizen was picked up in the mountains fighting an insurgency after doing something like blowing up Parliament. I would wager there would be little outcry if they were being waterboarded.

I doubt it. Remember the pissed off nature of people about the American Taliban(John Walker Lindh) while I would never condone his actions, his hefty prison sentence and the national outcry over him is evidence enough.

I say we need to follow the law. Up until 2006 we were doing just that with the enhanced interrogation methods. Now that the law has changed, that is what will be followed. US citizens always were, and continue to be, entitled to all the same protections under the law they have always enjoyed.

Great, lets follow the law. The law says no waterboarding.

I still havent heard an answer in regards to me asking whether an American with potential information about a nuclear strike on America should be afforded the normal constitutional rights.

 

[Bunz]

Like our own soldiers when we train them? We torture our soldiers during training... really?

You and I both know that is an entirely different situation. Not only do the soldiers know that they will not be taken further than is necessary to get a taste of something, versus having it done repeatedly, and with the actual potential that is causes death.

Have you ever been close to drowning? On a personal level I have, and frankly it is the most terrifying situation I can imagine short of being burned to death.

 

[Bunz]

Whatever it takes to save American lives, I'm good with.
Just remember how Al Qaeda be-heads our citizens (not soldiers), but news reporters.


Do you think that type of person should be spared a little torture.? I do not.

What if that person is an American citizen. Do you support torturing an American who might have information on a domestic terrorist case. Such as I mentioned before with Terry Nichols?