What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Bunz]

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?!!

Doc, the important thing here is to know this. That any differences in classifications in detainees back in WWII means little, when the Japanese soldiers subjected the Filipino resistance to the Japanese and also in the case of at least one member of the Doolittle Raid, was subjected to this treatment, they were tried and then executed for doing what we did until 2006.

 

[Bunz]

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?

Great, you and I both agree. They are POWs, they should be treated as such.

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.

Well, the definition provided here would certainly include waterboarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

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

I have done so, at least once, maybe twice now. In America, our moral code is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also the various treaties and conventions that we are signators to. None of which I am aware of make provisions for simulated drowning. [/quote]

I have already said at least once that American morality is what is defined in the US constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various treaties and assemblies we are members of or other wise signators to. That is the collective American morality.

 

[Bunz]

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.

I am not sure I could have said it better myself.

 

[Andy]

Well, the definition provided here would certainly include waterboarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

Sounds like solitary confinement would be included. Maybe even low quality prison food. Being stripped naked too. And being locked up in a small room. And being interrogated itself could be mental suffering. In fact all criminal punishment of all types could be considered torture under this definition.

Let's just dismantle the entire justice system, and be done with it.

I have done so, at least once, maybe twice now. In America, our moral code is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also the various treaties and conventions that we are signators to. None of which I am aware of make provisions for simulated drowning.

I have already said at least once that American morality is what is defined in the US constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various treaties and assemblies we are members of or other wise signators to. That is the collective American morality.

Oh I see.... So if we change the constitution through amendments, that suddenly is the new moral code? So in theory, if I elect enough crazy christian law makers, and they pass an amendment that Christianity is now the official and required religion, then that will be YOUR moral code?

Interesting. I wonder if atheists will agree to that one.

 

[Andy]

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?

We already covered that. American citizens are granted all the rights of an American citizen. They must be given regular due process under the law.

 

[Bunz]

Not according to the actual Geneva Conventions.

Well it is when it comes to the trials we held after WWII in regards to the actions of the Japanese. It might not be mentioned in the various Geneva Conventions precisely, but we have held others who committed such an act to the highest level of the law.

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

HUH? Name me another western country in the world who uses these methods.

It is up for interpretation.

I would say it isnt. But the more important factor is that when it comes to the USSC, the matter isnt up for interpretation and they have firmly said NO.

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.

Well I think this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Sleep deprivation for a day or two is one thing, over a week is something else entirely. I have managed to go a few days while on the boat, but the notion of a week is simply absurd. Then the issue of bugs, well I can certainly see how this is utterly distressing, without appearing to be weak on security. I live in Alaska, where the mosquitos are the most fierce in the world, but nothing that is posionous. If I were laying in basically a coffin and someone were to dump what appeared to be poisonious spiders, I would probably lose my mind.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

I agree, the idea that somehow our training has the same effect on a prisoner as it does on our troops when done for training, is just wrong. I American troop knows what is going on, how long it will last, and that they will not be killed. A detained person , often from nations that do tourture and or kill prisoners , and dont know how many months or years we could do this to them, or how far we would go. Torture is in large part psychological and knowing its training takes away key parts of it.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

I have clearly stated that by giving them any less than 5 star treatment, people will still claim torture and inhumane treatment.

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.

Half this thread is people saying what we can't do, there is no shortage of what we can't do. What is limited is what we can do for the purposes of interrogation.

When the CIA and the Military are given instruction on acceptable interrogation techniques, they are not simply handed a list of what they cannot do, they are given a list of what they CAN do. This is the point of asking the question: What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

then this is a pointless debate.

Thus far, you have been incapable of answering with even ONE suggestion of a technique you would approve. Without the ability to do that, your participation in this thread is pointless.

 

[Dr.Who]

Doc, the important thing here is to know this. That any differences in classifications in detainees back in WWII means little, when the Japanese soldiers subjected the Filipino resistance to the Japanese and also in the case of at least one member of the Doolittle Raid, was subjected to this treatment, they were tried and then executed for doing what we did until 2006.

um, no.

The important thing to know is that soldiers in uniforms are given rights by all the nations that agreed to the rules. The detainees did not agree to the rules and the US did not agree to treat terrorists by those rules. They don't apply.

What does apply are the rules that the cia followed. Rules that were approved by both republicans and the very democrats that are complaining now so they can make political points with national security issues.

If a soldier named Doolittle was tortured by an army from Japan that agreed to follow those rules then there is a legal basis for trial. I did not find the info on those tortures so I do not even know what was done to him. Can you provide that?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

So Waterboarding KSM in 2003 prevented a terrorist attack in 2002, is that the current re-writing of history that's going on ?

 

[GenSeneca]

Great, you and I both agree. They are POWs, they should be treated as such.

We may agree that we are at war but clearly we do not agree on the legal status of those we pick up during that war. If you think POW status is appropriate, then I have to wonder if you've thought through the implications of bestowing upon them such a designation.

BigRob is an FP guru, so I'm confident he will correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following:
1. POW's do not get trials of any kind, only those charged with war crimes get trials.
2. POW's are held indefinately and only released at the end of the conflict or in trade for our own POW's.
3. The Geneva Convention clearly outlines the conditions and requirements for persons taking up arms against a signatory country in order for them to qualify for POW status and those we have picked up do not meet any of those requirements.

Those are just a few concerns I would have about labeling the detainees as POW's but there are more.

So once again, I'm left with the impression that you are operating on a concept of how we should treat these people rather than working from the definitions and rules of law already in place. You want those we pick up to be treated like POW's in some ways but totally different from POW's in others.

Well, the definition provided here would certainly include waterboarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

Thanks. Finally someone offered a definition... I will gladly return to this but first...

PLC, Pocket, Mare and the rest... Do you all agree with the definition of Torture that Bunz has provided?

If not, please provide your own definition.

I have already said at least once that American morality is what is defined in the US constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various treaties and assemblies we are members of or other wise signators to.

Again, thanks but before I comment:

PLC, Pocket, Mare and the rest... Do you all agree with Bunz that morality is defined in the Constitution, the bill of rights and international treaties?

If not, please provide your own answer.

That is the collective American morality.

We shall soon see if the collective agrees with you.

-------------------------------------------------
So we don't stray too far off the topic and purpose of the thread,
I.E. What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Bunz, if you could be so kind as to offer just one tecnique you would find acceptable for interrogaters to use for the purpose of gaining information, I would very much appreciate it.

If each of you give just one suggestion, it will have <only> taken 11 pages to get a list of approved tecniques started.

 

[top gun]

It's really pretty easy here.

Let's take to most popular "waterboarding". We ourselves... America... have spoken out against and even helped prosecute as a war crime waterboarding by other countries as torture.

This seems a very hard thing to then say... Oh, but it's OK if we need to do it.

And there is very good instruction about legal combat interrogation in the Army Field Manual not to mention reams of International Law on what is or is not torture and allowed under International Law.

What really happens here is we experience a gut response brought on by very bad people doing really horrible things. We see our captured severely mistreated even beheaded and it's natural to want to say F the rules with these A$$HOLE JERKS!

But that's the thing about being the honorable country... the country ruled by it's people & the rule of law... the white hats!

We strive to do what's legal & right even if we'd like nothing more than to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

That's what makes us better and the winners in the long run IMO.

 

[fj1200]

What difference does it make? The whole torture diversion is a ruse. The wackos don't wanna do anything different than the Republicans, they just wanna pizz and moan. Of course they'll get the added benefit of diverting the public's attention away from the fact that Obummer is screwing up the economy worse than it should have to be. So many usefull idiots.........

 

[BigRob]

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.

I did not "concede" that the action was torture. I conceded that it was stopped after the Supreme Court said to stop it, since what they say becomes the law.

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.

Most of the sentiment I remember about Lindh at the time he was captured was that he was a traitor. He did however get a trial, and a lot of what was claimed about him being mistreated is under dispute by those who were there.

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

It does now, but it did not at the time we did it.

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.

I said before, maybe in another thread, that no an American should not be subject to this because it is a flagrant breach of the law. Doing it to a "detainee" however is not.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

TopGun Said: But that's the thing about being the honorable country... the country ruled by it's people & the rule of law... the white hats!

There in lays the 'rub'!!! Since we have lowered that 'bar of righteous/imperial mindset' to justify the reasons 'for' approving water-boarding on prisoners...{why, wasn't that done on their sick/twist fearless leader Saddam Hussein} then we can't expect to have our prisoners treated according to the "Geneva Accord"...we have shattered that 'glass ceiling' and there is no way to repair it {not in my life time}.

How do we undo this horrible wrong??? Well, we have made quite a few horrible mistakes in the past {historical records resonate in the gory details} and we've tried very hard too not be repetitively stupid in our endeavors to modify/rectify the 'official prisoner rules & guidelines' so that those prior heinous tortured details will not be repeated! Read some history of our own civil war prisons for more finite details...it is horribly shocking what we allowed to take place on both sides of that war!!!

But I do believe that we need to have hearing on this specific 'water-boarding issue'...not to be a head-hunter search for who said what/when/why...but for fuller understanding and hope for the future too not repeat the 'justification' for bending a rule about what is allowable and why was this allowed this time in this instance! That's what I hope for anyway. That we admit what we did was wrong and that we snug up those 'wording loop-holes' to keep it from happening again! IMO