What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[top gun]

No, Military.


It is my understanding that the detainees in Gitmo were not being given trials, at least not all of them, and were being punished/tortured. Am I wrong?


Let me clarify, I believe we should hold trials during the war and if they are innocent set them free. I think I was trying to justify in my head the thought that some of the detainees would turn against us because of their experience in Gitmo. But, if we treated them fairly in the first place they would not be a threat, theoretically.



They are only principals if you stand by them while inconvenient. I would not resort to torture to obtain the information. I am assuming if you have proof they are an A-1 threat you have enough evidence to put them away for life. If prison for life isn't enough motivation for them to speak I suppose we will have to get the information a different way.

You have to understand the Bush/Cheney and the Conservatives that back their evil ways TORTURE MINDSET.

They will play word games all day long.

Here's some examples you have heard:

It's not TORTURE it's enhanced interrogation (drowning somebody with water suffocation)

We couldn't treat them as POW's because then we'd have to hold them forever. So we're holding them forever without trials at GITMO to keep that from happening.

They aren't POW's because technically they weren't wearing uniforms we recognize as sufficient. We knew they were enemy soldiers, that's why we detained them. In fact we captured most all of them on the battlefield. But if we called the POW's it makes it a lot trickier to TORTURE them.

And my personal favorite... Yes we could of TREATED them with POW's standards and still labeled them with some other name. But then we couldn't have TORTURED THEM!

See a pattern...

Look what else they "thought" they could do...

 

[Butercupp]

You do not always have the evidence in a clear cut manner as you assume. Further, prison for life is not a motivation for radical religious fanatics to speak. These are people who willingly blow themselves up for the cause, saying "prison for life" to them is not going to matter.

Then I suppose we will have to get our information a different way. Not Torture.

 

[top gun]

Then I suppose we will have to get our information a different way. Not Torture.

EXACTLY!

Does the PRO-TORTURE side not get it at all? By their logic we should just start with cutting off fingers or poking there eyes out... I mean WE MUST HAVE THIS INFORMATION!!! We can be animals... it's alright.

If they won't tell us what we want to hear we should be able to crush the testicles of their children in their presence to get them to talk.

Am I ever glad the animals in this country were kicked to the curb this last election!!!!!!!

But the main thing is we have to keep it fresh in the minds of everybody we speak with what the Republicans in charge did... made up clearance to do in the future i.e. crush children's testicles... and what they'd surly do if ever given the chance again.

NO MORE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AMERICA!

 

[kathaksung]

To legalize the torture, government issued document in mid 2002. Then we saw Libi, Zhubadah, and Mohammed were tortured until March 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq. Obviously to force "desired words" from the victime to justify Iraq war.

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

The Times said a 2005 Justice Department memorandum showed that Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner questioned in the CIA's overseas detention program in August 2002, was waterboarded 83 times, although a former CIA officer had told news media he had been subjected to only 35 seconds underwater before talking.
The Justice Department memo said the simulated drowning technique was used on Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. The Times said some copies of the memos appeared to have the number of waterboardings redacted while others did not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53H0DG20090420

The purpose of torture

Zhubadh talked after 35 seconds. Why still being waterboarded 83 times? --CIA wanted some "desired words". What kind of "desired words"?

Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003. -- Still remember the time to invade Iraq? March 21 2003.

Now read the following comment, you know what the purpose for torture:

The Rachel Madow show (MSNBC) tonight interviewed Pulitzer prize winning author Ron Suskind (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Suskind>) who alleges that the Bush White House authorized torture, not to ward off future terrorist attacks in the U.S. like they claim, but to force lies out of suspects, connecting Saddam Hussein's Iraq with the 9/11/2001 attack! These "Confessions" would be used to justify the Iraq war.

 

[kathaksung]

To legalize the torture, government issued document in mid 2002. Then we saw Libi, Zhubadah, and Mohammed were tortured until March 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq. Obviously to force "desired words" from the victime to justify Iraq war.

Bush's 'Smoking Gun' Witness Found Dead
Global Research , May 13, 2009
IndictBushNow.org

A prisoner who was horribly tortured in 2002 until he agreed - at the demand of Bush torturers - to say that al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein is suddenly dead. Several weeks ago, Human Rights Watch investigators discovered the missing inmate and talked to him. He had been secretly transferred by the administration to a prison in Libya after having been held by the CIA both in secret “black hole prisons” and in Egypt.

Under conditions of extreme torture, the prisoner, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, agreed in 2002 to supply the Bush-ordered interrogators what they sought as a political cover for Bush’s marketing of the pending war of aggression against Iraq. Mr. Libi agreed to tell them whatever they wanted in exchange for an end to the torture. The now famous Torture Memos providing legal cover for the torture were written at the same time starting in the summer of 2002.

Libi’s tortured and knowingly fabricated testimony was the source of information used by Bush to sell the war to the U.S. Senate, and the source for Colin Powell’s bogus and lying presentation to the United Nations in 2003.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are now running around saying that the torture regime “protected the country from terrorist attack.” But the torture was used for the personal political goals of Bush and Cheney: namely, to sell their Iraq invasion to a very skeptical and disbelieving country.

Having been discovered by human rights investigators two weeks ago, Mr. Libi’s story coincided with the release of the Torture Memos and the growing clamor for criminal prosecutions of Bush officials.

His testimony is the smoking gun that would reveal that the torture regime was not for “national security” but for the personal political aims of Bush and Cheney.

He was Exhibit A in the indictment that alleges that tortured confessions and the contrived legal justifications of torture set up by Justice Department lawyers in July/August 2002 were central to the launch of the war against Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of U.S. service members have either been killed or badly wounded in a war that was based on lies fortified and promoted by the most sadistic torture.

Mr. Libi is suddenly dead. A Libyan “newspaper source” says that his death is an apparent suicide. His friends don’t believe that.

We are building a movement for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. This is not a political choice. It is a legal imperative. Mr. Libi’s death must be the first business of the investigation. When other prisoners who had been kept at secret sites were sent to Guantanamo, the Bush administration and the CIA intentionally kept Mr. Libi from being part of that transfer. Mr. Libi was publicly stating that the Iraq-al-Qaeda links attributed to him from his torture sessions were not true.

“Who was the beneficiary” from his death? Why was he spirited away by the Bush administration to hidden foreign prisons after he recanted his tortured testimony and revealed that he was forced to make false statements about Iraq

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13613

 

[Saxon]

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?

Is this too harsh?

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

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 answers to those questions and please don't forget the list of interrogation techniques you would approve.

We all know what you think is inappropriate, so please don't bore everyone with tripe about, "we shouldn't torture, so anything short of torture is fine with me" nonsense... that's a total cop-out answer and the kind of answer people who feel, rather than think, would give to such a question.

None of the above list were considered torture by the people using the tactics. So if you are one who has complained about our use of those enhanced interrogation techniques, prove that you are willing to give the topic some thought, that you're not just a knee-jerk reactionary, by providing a list of techniques you would approve.

If it will make the bastards talk, ALL are acceptable. Such individuals gave up their rights when they committed terrorism. They are therefore prisoners of war, and should be treated as such. You do not really believe when the enemy captures one of yours, they give him tea and crumpets, and ask nicely for information, do you? The idea is to be more vicious than the enemy. This is why the Soviets always managed to drag what they needed out of their captors.

 

[BigRob]

If it will make the bastards talk, ALL are acceptable. Such individuals gave up their rights when they committed terrorism. They are therefore prisoners of war, and should be treated as such. You do not really believe when the enemy captures one of yours, they give him tea and crumpets, and ask nicely for information, do you? The idea is to be more vicious than the enemy. This is why the Soviets always managed to drag what they needed out of their captors.

Careful with your terms there, if they are POW's then we are in violation of multiple treaties on the manner in which POW's are treated. Since ratified treaties carry equal weight as the Constitution, we would be violating the Constitution if we treated them in this manner (if they were POW's).

They are not POW's according to any treaty we have signed and therefore that is the reason we can legally conduct enhanced interrogation methods.

 

[Saxon]

Careful with your terms there, if they are POW's then we are in violation of multiple treaties on the manner in which POW's are treated. Since ratified treaties carry equal weight as the Constitution, we would be violating the Constitution if we treated them in this manner (if they were POW's).

They are not POW's according to any treaty we have signed and therefore that is the reason we can legally conduct enhanced interrogation methods.

The Constitution only applies to American citizens. Does not that very same aged parchment also demand that you protect the United States from all enemies? A good little kiss upon their cheeks is not going to serve the purpose.

So, do not let the world know you are in violation. WTF? It is so simple I don't understand the difficulty.

What do the treaties say about those who would seek to wipe out a large population? Hmmm?

 

[PLC1]

The Constitution only applies to American citizens. Does not that very same aged parchment also demand that you protect the United States from all enemies? A good little kiss upon their cheeks is not going to serve the purpose.

So, do not let the world know you are in violation. WTF? It is so simple I don't understand the difficulty.

What do the treaties say about those who would seek to wipe out a large population? Hmmm?

Yes, it's true that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. There is, however, another important document outlining the culture of liberty that the US stands for (or at least used to stand for). It clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All men are created equal.

Not just all men born in the USA. All men.

Further, we did, as Big Rob pointed out, sign agreements to treat POWs with human decency. Therefore, we dare not call the detainees of this war prisoners of war, because that would require us to treat them with human decency.

Saxon observes this:

Such individuals gave up their rights when they committed terrorism.

Which, of course, automatically assumes that anyone held by the US military as a terrorist is guilty of terrorism. We know, of course, that is not the case.

If all men are created equal, if we would neither torture our own citizens nor our prisoners of war, if we believe in the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, how can we possibly justify inventing a new term to describe people in our custody, then treating them in a manner that would be illegal were they either citizens or POW?

 

[Saxon]

Yes, it's true that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. There is, however, another important document outlining the culture of liberty that the US stands for (or at least used to stand for). It clearly states:



All men are created equal.

Not just all men born in the USA. All men.

Further, we did, as Big Rob pointed out, sign agreements to treat POWs with human decency. Therefore, we dare not call the detainees of this war prisoners of war, because that would require us to treat them with human decency.

Saxon observes this:



Which, of course, automatically assumes that anyone held by the US military as a terrorist is guilty of terrorism. We know, of course, that is not the case.

If all men are created equal, if we would neither torture our own citizens nor our prisoners of war, if we believe in the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, how can we possibly justify inventing a new term to describe people in our custody, then treating them in a manner that would be illegal were they either citizens or POW?

Ah, then the men who seeks the annihilation of your country, your people, via whatever means necessary, is your EQUAL? You believe such an individual should be treated as you would like to be treated, even if you have not the slightest thought of killing his brothers, his sisters, his parents, his country as he does for yours? Uh uh. Love that liberal logic.

 

[Saxon]

Yes, it's true that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. There is, however, another important document outlining the culture of liberty that the US stands for (or at least used to stand for). It clearly states:



All men are created equal.

Not just all men born in the USA. All men.

Further, we did, as Big Rob pointed out, sign agreements to treat POWs with human decency. Therefore, we dare not call the detainees of this war prisoners of war, because that would require us to treat them with human decency.

Saxon observes this:



Which, of course, automatically assumes that anyone held by the US military as a terrorist is guilty of terrorism. We know, of course, that is not the case.

If all men are created equal, if we would neither torture our own citizens nor our prisoners of war, if we believe in the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, how can we possibly justify inventing a new term to describe people in our custody, then treating them in a manner that would be illegal were they either citizens or POW?

You would seek to treat an enemy bent upon your annihilation as you would treat an American citizen? Damn.

Tell me, why would the American military go through such effort if they did not believe said individual was guilty of anything? Would this not be a waste of time? Why torture something they know has nothing to give? No logic there.

 

[BigRob]

The Constitution only applies to American citizens.

Yes, so it would govern those Americans who carried out the enhanced interrogation techniques. If we classify these people as POW's then they are entitled to multiple treaties that we are party to, which by US law are on equal footing with the Constitution. Therefore, if we classify them as POW's, we criminalize those who carry out enhanced interrogation techniques.

Does not that very same aged parchment also demand that you protect the United States from all enemies? A good little kiss upon their cheeks is not going to serve the purpose.

I am all for enhanced interrogations, however you need to understand that there is a clear legal case to be made in why it is acceptable. You are going to get nowhere arguing the point that they are "prisoners of war" (your words) and that we can therefore treat them however we like. That line is simply not true. If they are POW's then under US law they are entitled to certain protections that would forbid enhanced interrogations.

So, do not let the world know you are in violation. WTF? It is so simple I don't understand the difficulty.

That rarely works. The better approach is to make a legal case that clearly justifies what you are doing. It is harder to argue with that rationale than the rationale of "we won't let anyone know."

What do the treaties say about those who would seek to wipe out a large population? Hmmm?

Depends on the treaty.

 

[PLC1]

Ah, then the men who seeks the annihilation of your country, your people, via whatever means necessary, is your EQUAL? You believe such an individual should be treated as you would like to be treated, even if you have not the slightest thought of killing his brothers, his sisters, his parents, his country as he does for yours? Uh uh. Love that liberal logic.

All people are equal in the eyes of the creator.

When there is a war, we always try to dehumanize the opposition, usually by inventing words to describe them as something less than human.

We did the same thing to justify keeping blacks as slaves, inventing a term that meant that they were not human with equal rights to our own.

That said, does the cab driver in the M E "seek the annihilation of our country"? People in other nations generally want the same thing we do: liberty, a decent place to live, education for their children, a chance to earn a living.

It is organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban who seek the annihilation not only of the western nations, but of anyone who doesn't share their rather narrow view of the world, including fellow Muslims.

There is no war between Islam and Christianity. What we are seeing is a war between civilization and savagery. When we descend to the level of he savages, then they win.

 

[GenSeneca]

When we descend to the level of he savages, then they win.

When we pussy out and no longer have the stomach to defend ourselves from their aggression, because we fear doing so will make us appear as savages, then they win.

 

[PLC1]

When we pussy out and no longer have the stomach to defend ourselves from their aggression, because we fear doing so will make us appear as savages, then they win.

So, we have a fine line to walk, don't we? We have to fight evil without becoming evil.

The first step is in identifying evil.