What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[BigRob]

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.

It was not the same technique. There method involved actual soft tissue damage and physical abuse. Under our technique, no soft tissue damage occurred, and the subjects life was never in any real danger. Further, their actions were a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions since our people had met all the standards to be given POW rights, whereas these "detainees" have not. That is a major distinction as well.

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

You missed my point. My point was that the Geneva Conventions spells out what is needed to be done in order to get POW status. By giving people who have not done this POW status, we are in effect violating the Geneva Conventions.

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.

And we stopped when they did. I personally think they got it wrong however.

 

[BigRob]

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.

You can say our soldiers know how long it will go etc etc, but in the process, the mind takes over and that all goes out the window.

You could just as easily argue that after the 2nd or 3rd time we waterboarded those we did they figured out it was not going to kill them as well.

 

[Pandora]

This thread is pretty long and so far from what I can tell no one against what we have done will list what they are willing to do to get the information.

 

[GenSeneca]

If this thread were about dieting and food:

Recently my doctor ordered me to begin eating healthy foods but he didn't offer any specific dishes or ingredients. Before he told me to start eating healthy, I was eating things like sausage, egg and cheese omelets on buttered toast dipped in maple syrup with a side of bacon wrapped donuts and washing it all down with sugary, carbonated soda.

I realize I can't eat those things anymore and I accept that, so please don't bother telling me to stop eating those things... I already know that... What I want to know is:

1. What food dishes can I eat that would be healthy?
2. What are the specific ingredients in those dishes?
3. How should I prepare those dishes?

----------------------------------------------
Here is how the thread progressed from there:
----------------------------------------------

Person #1: OMG, you're such an evil person who deserves to be fried in bacon grease! Such depravity is common among you meat eaters. Meat is murder!

Person #2: How can you continue to want to eat such garbage when you know its bad for you? Hope you die...

Person #3: You should consider changing your diet to something more healthy like fruits and vegetables... Oh, and you're a racist homophobe.

Person #4: You hatemongers are all alike, pushing your Rosco's fried chicken and waffles on the rest of the world. SHAME ON YOU!

Person #5: Person #4 is so correct, thats exactly the kind of stuff you shouldn't be eating and here you are encouraging others to eat it!

GenSeneca: I know what not to eat. I have a vague idea of what I should eat but I need specifics to actually prepare the meals. My wife wants to go shopping and she said "fruits and vegetables" was not a proper grocery list and neither was an actual list of foods that she shouldn't buy.

Person #3: Now I know your a racist homophobe... I clearly said "fruits and vegetables" but you continue with your didactic tirades and dreams of chugging gallons of lard... I agree with Person #2, I hope you die.

Person #4: Obviously you're immoral and unethical, you watch too much Iron Chef and nothing anyone says will make you understand what a rotten person you are.
-------------------------------------------

Of course, this illustration will likely be lost on everyone who doesn't already understand.

 

[Pandora]

If this thread were about dieting and food:

Recently my doctor ordered me to begin eating healthy foods but he didn't offer any specific dishes or ingredients. Before he told me to start eating healthy, I was eating things like sausage, egg and cheese omelets on buttered toast dipped in maple syrup with a side of bacon wrapped donuts and washing it all down with sugary, carbonated soda.

I realize I can't eat those things anymore and I accept that, so please don't bother telling me to stop eating those things... I already know that... What I want to know is:

1. What food dishes can I eat that would be healthy?
2. What are the specific ingredients in those dishes?
3. How should I prepare those dishes?

----------------------------------------------
Here is how the thread progressed from there:
----------------------------------------------

Person #1: OMG, you're such an evil person who deserves to be fried in bacon grease! Such depravity is common among you meat eaters. Meat is murder!

Person #2: How can you continue to want to eat such garbage when you know its bad for you? Hope you die...

Person #3: You should consider changing your diet to something more healthy like fruits and vegetables... Oh, and you're a racist homophobe.

Person #4: You hatemongers are all alike, pushing your Rosco's fried chicken and waffles on the rest of the world. SHAME ON YOU!

Person #5: Person #4 is so correct, thats exactly the kind of stuff you shouldn't be eating and here you are encouraging others to eat it!

GenSeneca: I know what not to eat. I have a vague idea of what I should eat but I need specifics to actually prepare the meals. My wife wants to go shopping and she said "fruits and vegetables" was not a proper grocery list and neither was an actual list of foods that she shouldn't buy.

Person #3: Now I know your a racist homophobe... I clearly said "fruits and vegetables" but you continue with your didactic tirades and dreams of chugging gallons of lard... I agree with Person #2, I hope you die.

Person #4: Obviously you're immoral and unethical, you watch too much Iron Chef and nothing anyone says will make you understand what a rotten person you are.
-------------------------------------------

Of course, this illustration will likely be lost on everyone who doesn't already understand.

That was so funny


I dont think they want to say because they know what they are willing to do is weak and non effective.


I had said I thought it was ok to yell at them and sleep deprive them, not sure if that is exactly how I worded it.

the person who replied to me freaked at the idea of sleep depriving and then thought I wanted to shoot knee caps off.

they are not rational and thank GOD they are not in charge of getting info out of terrorists!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

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}.

**coughing...clearing my throat** Say, do I need to repeat myself???

We didn't use those 'wonderfully worded/horrifically applied techniques on Saddam' but he coughed up quite a lot of pertinent information without the application of physical abuse. So why change what had worked on him? Sorry, to answer the posted question with a question but this just doesn't make any rational sense...no, not at all!!! IMO

 

[Andy]

Speaking of the hypocritical system of party politics, this perfectly sums up my view.

Nancy Pelosi, as well as the majority of congressional leadership, all knew exactly what was planned, and agreed to it. Yet we're now supposed to investigate? Investigate who? The democrats should be investigating themselves if they plan to nail the people who agreed to this.

 

[Pandora]

Speaking of the hypocritical system of party politics, this perfectly sums up my view.

Nancy Pelosi, as well as the majority of congressional leadership, all knew exactly what was planned, and agreed to it. Yet we're now supposed to investigate? Investigate who? The democrats should be investigating themselves if they plan to nail the people who agreed to this.

If Pelosi knew or did not know will mean absolutly nothing to the far left as long as Bush burns. They will be happy to excuse her for what she knew if she helps them fry anyone they can in the Bush Administration. Actually they will be happy to excuse her even if Bush didnt fry... Its just the way they work.

 

[chestnut]

Obama is a thug from Chicago. His tactics are that of a candidate not that of a President.

Are we to believe, that in a time, where, according to Obama and the lbs, we are in the midst of the worst econmic crisis in the history of the world, that the President and key admin officials need to be going down this road, wasting time? What is it going to do to get the economy going.

He should think about the fact that if a Republican replaces him what kind of stuff they would want to prosecute him for.

Let's face it. It is another diversion, because he doesn't want people focusing on what a lousy job the stealfromous bill has done so far.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This thread is pretty long and so far from what I can tell no one against what we have done will list what they are willing to do to get the information.

Are you blind? I stated very clearly in my post to Genseca what I consider acceptable treatment for others.

I tried to find out where Genseca stood but he declined to delineate his position. How about you? What are you willing to do? Anything that might work? Torturing the suspects family for instance? That has been shown to work quite well. If results are the only measure, then the end justifies the means and you should not pussyfoot around but instead torture people to death in every instance just in case they might be withholding information, shouldn't you? Pony up, I answered your question so answer mine.

 

[Pandora]

Are you blind? I stated very clearly in my post to Genseca what I consider acceptable treatment for others.

I tried to find out where Genseca stood but he declined to delineate his position. How about you? What are you willing to do? Anything that might work? Torturing the suspects family for instance? That has been shown to work quite well. If results are the only measure, then the end justifies the means and you should not pussyfoot around but instead torture people to death in every instance just in case they might be withholding information, shouldn't you? Pony up, I answered your question so answer mine.

The only post of yours I saw was to me about sleeping well.


I did say what I think we can do in an earlier post and it was twisted in a really disturbing sort of way. So ill repeat it for you…

First off … I don’t think anything we have done so far as in water boarding, yelling, keeping them up and questioning them have been torture. If we know there is plan to bomb an American city I think that we have a responsibly to try and get that info and if we have to question them under bright lights with only an hour of sleep a day till they crack then we need to do it

I think if there is a terrorist with info on a bomb plot for an American city and we know he is afraid of heights, then take him someplace high and question him about the plan to bomb the American city, if he is afraid of caterpillars then stick frakin caterpillars on him and question him, if he is afraid of dark places then question him in dark places, lie to them and say their other terrorist friend confessed, degrade them if you have to and tell them things that make them mad, yell in their face and maybe if they get mad they will let some information slip out, I think all of that is acceptable treatment to get information like if they are going to bomb L.A. I am comfortable with any of the above.



I don’t think breaking their shoulders like what was done to McCain is acceptable, or cutting them, or beating them, starving them, tearing out their finger nails, breaking any bones or messing with their religion none of that is acceptable to me..

On a personal note, if I caught someone who took my daughter and had her hidden and he would not tell me where she was, I would tear his eyes out and hurt him in every way possible till he told me where she was. I am not against hurting someone for a very good reason. But I don’t expect my military to treat someone that way.

 

[Pandora]

Are you blind? I stated very clearly in my post to Genseca what I consider acceptable treatment for others.

I tried to find out where Genseca stood but he declined to delineate his position. How about you? What are you willing to do? Anything that might work? Torturing the suspects family for instance? That has been shown to work quite well. If results are the only measure, then the end justifies the means and you should not pussyfoot around but instead torture people to death in every instance just in case they might be withholding information, shouldn't you? Pony up, I answered your question so answer mine.

Well I just went back and I could not find any post where you were saying what you are willing to do to a terrorist who is in your custody to get information. You are going to have to point it out for me.

 

[Bunz]

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.

I think most rational people the world over would think that in many cases the things you described would be alright if the situation called for it.

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

I am not surprised to hear you say this. Bush tried to do it, and was successful in some ways.

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.

OK, reality check here. To start, the first amendment would abolish any of those efforts. I was more referring to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

 

[Bunz]

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.

Isnt the goal here keeping us safe? If its gonna keep us safe, where do you draw the line?

 

[Bunz]

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?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

I think this will provide some information. The piece also explains how there are more than a few other cases of Americans being punished for doing this, dating back to the Spanish-American war.