| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2008 06:33:22 PM · #1 |
sorry for the spoof thread title.
//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/mukasey.waterboarding/index.html
So the Justice Dept gets it 'wrong' about what's legal or not, but that's okay, you don't want to investigate it,
because you wouldn't want to revisit the decision because it would undermine faith in the justice department ?
So waterboarding probably isn't legal, but when we did it, we were told it was, so that's okay and we aren't
going to do it again. and the AG signs off on that.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 08:18:54 PM · #2 |
So, would YOU , personally, authorize the use of water boarding if it meant saving the life of one of your family members?
I Know I Would
That's the problem with wars today.....We are not prepared to do whatever it takes to win. I fully support our military but I just don't believe I would enlist today and fight under today's "rules".
Message edited by author 2008-02-07 20:27:00.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 08:23:25 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
So, would YOU , personally, authorize the use of waterboarding if it meant saving the life of one of your family members?
I Know I Would |
Would you object to waterboarding to your family member if it means saving life of my family member??
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 08:28:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Would you object to waterboarding to your family member if it means saving life of my family member?? |
Not unless you are the enemy.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 08:33:29 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Would you object to waterboarding to your family member if it means saving life of my family member?? |
Not unless you are the enemy. |
Exactly.
Most of the people who are subject to these harsh techniques are not your enemy. There are there because an administration has put them there without recourse to legal procedures. If there was any proof against them they could be tried and given the punishment deserved. If they are not tried in legal system and not done so for years it means one and only one thing that there is no proof against them.
I would not subject fellow human being to inhumane methods, and this is difference between me and a terrorist. |
|
|
|
02/07/2008 08:52:42 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
So, would YOU , personally, authorize the use of water boarding if it meant saving the life of one of your family members?
I Know I Would |
What if you didn't know whether it would result in either (1) accurate information that would save a family member or (2) inaccurate information that would distract the services and result in the death of a family member. Place the odds at a very generous 50:50 on the likelihood of getting the right answer (in fact with torture you are vastly more likely to get inaccurate data) and would you roll the dice?
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 09:11:04 PM · #7 |
To fight terrorism you must be a terrorist in the eyes of your enemy. You seem to be mixing the subject of water boarding with that of the enemy being held in Cuba.
Now, in that regard, I don't believe those were just your average citizen that were rounded up and em-prisoned.
Just for the record...Those folks over in the middle east have fought for many years. They are a different breed, evolved, for the most part to know not much more than to fight amoung themselves. Look how they have lived before the money came from the oil industry. If those folks want liberty and freedom they will have to earn it themselves. We need to develop new sources of energy but in the mean time we should drill in our own turf, protect our own borders and leave them the hell alone.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2008 09:13:17 PM · #8 |
Matthew, I would make my very best analysis of the facts and act accordingly.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2008 11:54:38 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
What if you didn't know whether it would result in either (1) accurate information that would save a family member or (2) inaccurate information that would distract the services and result in the death of a family member. Place the odds at a very generous 50:50 on the likelihood of getting the right answer (in fact with torture you are vastly more likely to get inaccurate data) and would you roll the dice? |
Matthew;
One is never certain of the results of any questioning. Coercive interogation would not be used if it did'nt produce results. Police departments, Governments, even parents use some form of coercive interogation when the real truth must be vetted in a short time frame.
During the Viet Nam War, the POW's that were captured - ALL BROKE. Regardless of the requirement of Name, rank and serial number, they all talked. Some took longer than others, but none escaped telling what they knew. It is not possible to avoid this. Therefore, it must work. (One reason why military units have sepcialized groups that specifically address returning POW's to releive the guilt of having broken. Everyone talks - at some point.)
Now, have there been instances (like the inquisition) where people admitted to false charges just to get the pain to stop. Yes. Does that mean that coercive interogation never is effective in generating the TRUTH. No.
To imply that you could withstand waterboarding and not tell the truth is inaccurate. You would tell every secret you ever knew, remembered knowing, even heard about.
Is it moral? That is a completely separate question. But to dismiss coercive interogation on the grounds that the information obtained is not reliable, is simply false. Ask any of the former POW's retained in NVN.
Message edited by author 2008-02-08 12:09:32. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:02:50 PM · #10 |
Here are 2 links for your review. I specifically refer to this section of link 2.
"In the end, it may depend on what kind of information the torturer is trying to elicit. As journalist Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate: "Torture to produce a confession ('Yes, I am a terrorist') almost certainly is useless; at some point of pain, many people would confess to anything. But torture to elicit specific information (Who told you to do this? Where did the meeting take place? Who else is in your cell? What are they planning to blow up tomorrow?) sometimes will do -- clearly, has done -- the job."
House commitee
PBS
|
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:12:48 PM · #11 |
| torture is not the same as using interrogation techniques. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:17:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by frisca:
torture is not the same as using interrogation techniques. |
Oh?
Torture is torture, whether it's done in the pursuit of information or not.
Message edited by author 2008-02-08 13:24:05. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:22:03 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:23:47 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Flash:
During the Viet Nam War, the POW's that were captured - ALL BROKE. Regardless of the requirement of Name, rank and serial number, they all talked. Some took longer than others, but none escaped telling what they knew. It is not possible to avoid this. Therefore, it must work. (One reason why military units have sepcialized groups that specifically address returning POW's to releive the guilt of having broken. Everyone talks - at some point.) |
There were numerous instances of those who did not break being simply being killed.
Originally posted by Flash:
To imply that you could withstand waterboarding and not tell the truth is inaccurate. You would tell every secret you ever knew, remembered knowing, even heard about.
But to dismiss coercive interogation on the grounds that the information obtained is not reliable, is simply false. Ask any of the former POW's retained in NVN. |
No, you wouldn't lie or tell the truth, you'd tell them whatever would make the torture stop, be that the truth, a lie, partial truth, anything. Everything you say would be in total desperation and the truths would be indistinguishable from the falsehoods. From an intelligence gathering perspective, such information is worth little until verified.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:28:05 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:37:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by frisca:
torture is not the same as using interrogation techniques. |
Oh?
Torture is torture, whether it's done in the pursuit of information or not. |
You completely and wholly misunderstood me. What I was trying to express is that one can interrogate aggressively and effectively without torture. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:37:53 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, you wouldn't lie or tell the truth, |
If it didn't work, it would not be used. No one has hours, days, weeks, or months to waste. Outside of some criminals who specifically "enjoy" torturing their captives, militaries/Intelligence Agencies coercively interrogate for information - period. If it did not produce actionable intelligence, then they would use something else. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:39:06 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, you wouldn't lie or tell the truth, |
If it didn't work, it would not be used. No one has hours, days, weeks, or months to waste. Outside of some criminals who specifically "enjoy" torturing their captives, militaries/Intelligence Agencies coercively interrogate for information - period. If it did not produce actionable intelligence, then they would use something else. |
I disagree. I think they'll take anything they get and then try to verify as much of it as they can. Or just use it, true or a lie, to interrogate and accuse others. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:47:40 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So?
That's 45 years old. |
B. The Theory of Coercion
Coercive procedures are designed not only to exploit the resistant sourceâs internal conflicts and induce him to wrestle with himself but also to bring a superior outside force to bear upon the subjectâs resistance. Non-coercive methods are not likely to succeed if their selection and use is not predicated upon an accurate psychological assessment of the source. In contrast, the same coercive method may succeed against persons who are very unlike each other. The changes of success rise steeply, nevertheless, if the coercive technique is matched to the sourceâs personality. Individuals react differently even to such seemingly non-discriminatory stimuli as drugs. Moreover, it is a waste of time and energy to apply strong pressures on a hit-or-miss basis if a tap on the psychological jugular will produce compliance.
All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression. As Hinkle notes in âThe Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject as it Affects Brain Functionâ(7), the result of external pressures of sufficient intensity is the loss of those defenses most recently acquired by civilized man: â⦠the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to meet new, challenging, and complex situations, to deal with trying interpersonal relations, and to cope with repeated frustrations. Relatively small degrees of homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety may impair these functions.â As a result, âmost people who are exposed to coercive procedures will talk and usually reveal some information that they might not have revealed otherwise.â
One subjective reaction often evoked by coercion is a feeling of guilt. Meltzer observes, âIn some lengthy interrogations, the interrogator may, by virtue of his role as the sole supplier of satisfaction and punishment, assume the stature and importance of a parental figure in the prisonerâs feeling and thinking. Although there may be intense hatred for the interrogator, it is not unusual for warm feelings also to develop. This ambivalence is the basis for guilt reactions, and if the interrogator nourishes these feelings, the guilt may be strong enough to influence the prisonerâs behaviorâ¦. Guilt makes compliance more likelyâ¦.â(7).
Farber says that the response to coercion typically contains â⦠at least three important elements: debility, dependency, and dread.â Prisoners â⦠have reduced viability, are helplessly dependent on their captors for the satisfaction of their many basic needs, and experience the emotional and motivational reactions of intense fear and anxietyâ¦. Among the [American] POWâs pressured by the Chinese Communists, the DDD syndrome in its full-blown form constituted a state of discomfort that was well-nigh intolerable.â (11). If the debility-dependency-dread state is unduly prolonged, however, the arrestee may sink into a defensive apathy from which it is hard to arouse him.
Psychologists and others who write about physical or psychological duress frequently object that under sufficient pressure subjects usually yield but that their ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist. This pragmatic objection has somewhat the same validity for a counterintelligence interrogation as for any other. But there is one significant difference. Confession is a necessary prelude to the CI interrogation of a hitherto unresponsive or concealing source. And the use of coercive techniques will rarely or never confuse an interrogatee so completely that he does not know whether his own confession is true or false. He does not need full mastery of all his powers of resistance and discrimination to know whether he is a spy or not. Only subjects who have reached a point where they are under delusions are likely to make false confessions that they believe. Once a true confession is obtained, the classic cautions apply. The pressures are lifted, at least enough so that the subject can provide counterintelligence information as accurately as possible. In fact, the relief granted the subject at this time fits neatly into the interrogation plan. He is told that the changed treatment is a reward for truthfulness and an evidence that friendly handling will continue as long as he cooperates.
The profound moral objection to applying duress past the point of irreversible psychological damage has been stated. Judging the validity of other ethical arguments about coercion exceeds the scope of this paper. What is fully clear, however, is that controlled coercive manipulation of an interrogatee may impair his ability to make fine distinctions but will not alter his ability to answer correctly such gross questions as âAre you a Soviet agent? What is your assignment now? Who is your present case officer?â
When an interrogator senses that the subjectâs resistance is wavering, that his desire to yield is growing stronger than his wish to continue his resistance, the time has come to provide him with the acceptable rationalization: a face-saving reason or excuse for compliance. Novice interrogators may be tempted to seize upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize the victory. Such a temptation must be rejected immediately. An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the winner and the other the loser. It is simply a method of obtaining correct and useful information. Therefore the interrogator should intensify the subjectâs desire to cease struggling by showing him how he can do so without seeming to abandon principle, self-protection, or other initial causes of resistance. If, instead of providing the right rationalization at the right time, the interrogator seizes gloatingly upon the subjectâs wavering, opposition will stiffen again.
The following are the principal coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, narcosis, and induced regression. This section also discusses the detection of malingering by interrogatees and the provision of appropriate rationalizations for capitulating and cooperating. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 01:53:34 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
To fight terrorism you must be a terrorist in the eyes of your enemy. You seem to be mixing the subject of water boarding with that of the enemy being held in Cuba.
Now, in that regard, I don't believe those were just your average citizen that were rounded up and em-prisoned.
Just for the record...Those folks over in the middle east have fought for many years. They are a different breed, evolved, for the most part to know not much more than to fight amoung themselves. Look how they have lived before the money came from the oil industry. If those folks want liberty and freedom they will have to earn it themselves. We need to develop new sources of energy but in the mean time we should drill in our own turf, protect our own borders and leave them the hell alone. |
There's an implication here in some way if we become "terrorists" ourselves we become a more formidable enemy of terrorism. I vehemently disagree with that. I don't think the way to solve these problems is to operate at such a level that we become indistinguishable from the problem. And to a certain extent we have already done that, have been doing it for many decades in fact. The instances of the CIA "sponsoring" terrorism in other countries are too many to list, and well-documented.
Have you ever thought that if we had never involved ourselves in Middle-East politics and regimes we might not be being targeted now? Granted, that culture has a history of belligerence against those they perceive to be their enemies, but the problem is not their belligerence; it's that they see the "West" as an implacable enemy that has destroyed, or is trying to destroy, their way of life.
I don't believe we are helping the situation one bit by operating at their level, basically.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2008 02:09:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, you wouldn't lie or tell the truth, |
If it didn't work, it would not be used. No one has hours, days, weeks, or months to waste. Outside of some criminals who specifically "enjoy" torturing their captives, militaries/Intelligence Agencies coercively interrogate for information - period. If it did not produce actionable intelligence, then they would use something else. |
That's why it's not necessary. It doesn't work. It's used because some people don't understand that.
Also, you assertion that militaries and intelligence agencies torture only as a tool to get information is also wrong. It's commonly been used to intimidate both the enemy and anyone who might sympathize with the enemy. They simply leave the mutilated body (or pieces of the body) where it will be found, or send the still living victim back to tell their tale of horror to the others. You may immediately think of the tortured bodies found in Iraq, but I assure you, it goes much further back than that.
Even with techniques less objectionable than waterboarding, there are multiple cases where the subject of police interrogation have "spilled the beans" and the SWAT team has been called to raid a house, only to find an innocent family sleeping, or worse, getting into a firefight with a law abiding homeowner who believes he is defending himself and his loved ones against a home invasion.
Message edited by author 2008-02-08 14:14:38.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2008 02:28:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, you wouldn't lie or tell the truth, |
If it didn't work, it would not be used. No one has hours, days, weeks, or months to waste. Outside of some criminals who specifically "enjoy" torturing their captives, militaries/Intelligence Agencies coercively interrogate for information - period. If it did not produce actionable intelligence, then they would use something else. |
I disagree. I think they'll take anything they get and then try to verify as much of it as they can. Or just use it, true or a lie, to interrogate and accuse others. |
Frisca,
Please consider the reason that an interrogation is even initiated. Information, specifically actionable information, is the purpose and reason. Any activity that hinders that goal - impairs the interrogation. Please take a moment and read the theory behind coercive interrogation. It is illuminating. Regardless of what various media reports say or suggest, there is no advantage to wasting time with an interogatee by using ineffective techniques.
However, I always respect your right to disagree with me. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 02:31:38 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's why it's not necessary. It doesn't work. It's used because some people don't understand that. |
Spazmo,
What I read here, is that you are claiming the reason that our CIA uses coercive interrogation is because they do not understant that it doesn't work.
Please correct me, if I have mis-read what you wrote. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 02:51:37 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's why it's not necessary. It doesn't work. It's used because some people don't understand that. |
Spazmo,
What I read here, is that you are claiming the reason that our CIA uses coercive interrogation is because they do not understand that it doesn't work.
Please correct me, if I have mis-read what you wrote. |
Even if it DOES work, all this discussion is (IMO) completely missing the point. Dynamiting a pond is an an effective way to catch fish. Murder is an effective solution to the problem of an abusive spouse. Cheating on your exams is an effective way to get a high grade in a course.
It's just WRONG. We shouldn't be torturing people, period. It's barbaric. And I don't care if the people we are torturing my be "barbarians" themselves; it doesn't make it right.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2008 03:27:16 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's why it's not necessary. It doesn't work. It's used because some people don't understand that. |
Spazmo,
What I read here, is that you are claiming the reason that our CIA uses coercive interrogation is because they do not understant that it doesn't work.
Please correct me, if I have mis-read what you wrote. |
They understand that it gets the subject to answer their questions. What's more difficult to understand is the veracity of those statements under that kind of duress. I can assure you that if you were subjected to that treatment and thought that I wanted to hear that the midday sky was fluorescent pink, that's exactly what you'd say. If I wanted to hear about KSM and you really knew nothing, you'd tell me whatever you could think up true or not.
Questions of effectiveness aside, torture is illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. Engaging in such activities, no matter the purpose in doing so, would make the U.S. no better than the insurgent scum a running torture room in Iraq, torturing people with electric shock and a power drill.
Message edited by author 2008-02-08 15:27:37.
|
|
