A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[Foxfyre]

And WJ is pos repped for being the first to have the courage to deal with that toe.

 

[bodecea]

So, you are saying that along with waterboarding........ forced sleep deprevation, forced hunger, forced cold, forced exposure to loud music etc.,...should never be used?

Seriously, do any of those fall under torture?

When we were blasting Noriega's compound with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, or doing the same in WACO, we must have been torturing them, correct?

The definition of torture is to that it is used to extract information from people who we have in our custody. You guys keep wanting to gloss over that.

That's different from Psyops against an active enemy force.

LMAO, buddy!

That's all I can do.

God forbid we make these dirtbags feel uncomfortable in an attempt to extract information.

God forbid we make them cold, tired, hungry..........It's just sooooooooo fuckin' evil.

Those poor souls!

Oh look...it's the "If we don't want torture it's because we want to coddle them" gambit.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The definition of torture is to that it is used to extract information from people who we have in our custody. You guys keep wanting to gloss over that.

That's different from Psyops against an active enemy force.

LMAO, buddy!

That's all I can do.

God forbid we make these dirtbags feel uncomfortable in an attempt to extract information.

God forbid we make them cold, tired, hungry..........It's just sooooooooo fuckin' evil.

Those poor souls!

Oh look...it's the "If we don't want torture it's because we want to coddle them" gambit.

Noooooo, it's called, calling out the liberal absurdity of it all.

You do understand that none of those teqniques is defined as torture, correct?

So, why should they not be used?

And, answer Foxfyres question, if you have the guts.

I fully expect nothing but your usual snarky crap, and complete deflection.....But lets see if you can actually engage in a topic. for once.......Really Bodey, it's not that difficult......All ya' have to do is actually think for once.

 

[Flopper]

The purpose of interrogation is to get information or confessions, not to punish or extract revenge.

Interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When prisoners are tortured, they do just opposite. They start lying and continue to do so. They tell the interrogator what they think he wants to hear not necessarily the truth. It works well for extracting confessions but that's about all.

Yes, I agree with this.

Your agreement is of no actual value to the discussion, however, since that claim is unsupported, factually.

If instead of blowing off the top of Osama's head he had been taken alive and we discovered that he had info that we desperately needed to prevent him and his al qaeda pals from setting off a dirty bomb in the middle of town during the second leg of the Triple Crown (so much for the Pimlico race track?) --

torturing him MIGHT yield initially unreliable information. But possibly if we persisted in extracting the information from him by punishing him for every untruthful response, he just MIGHT get "trained" to respond promptly AND honestly.

Yet, torture makes us feel all icky. So as a matter of national policy and pride we should refrain from insisting that he give up every scrap of the plans to us?

Bye bye Baltimore? And the winner of the Preakness Stakes? A photo finish:

"American Virtue Intact" finishes a NOSE behind "Osamasdead Butgetsrevenge."

The top interrogation experts all say torture doesn't work:

The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn't work

The CIA's own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not "efficacious" in producing information

A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists

A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:
“The administration’s claims of having ‘saved thousands of Americans’ can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered — not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. … It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.”

The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn't work
A former US Air Force interrogator said that information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists

The number 2 terrorism expert for the State Department says torture doesn't work, and just creates more terrorists

A former high-level CIA officer states:
Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn't work.

A former CIA station chief in Pakistan who served at the agency for three decades doubts that torture saved any lives

Still don't believe it? These people also say torture doesn't produce usable intelligence:
Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."

Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."

Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that for a fact. "

Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work → Washington's Blog

 

[frazzledgear]

When stupid liberals opposed to "torture" are asked what they would do if some group took their family members and they could torture someone to find their family....most say they would torture the person.

Typical liars and hypocrites trying to act holier than thou with their BS about torture, but when it's personal to them they are FOR IT.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, so the argument needs to stop. Terrorists are VOLUNTEERS and are like criminals but at a worse level, so they are not afforded the rights of a POW under the Geneva Conventions.

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

No one is talking about legalizing murder OR torture.


Apparently it hasn't crossed the minds of liberals -but the reason, in spite of all their handwringing and hysterics that the US hasn't been charged with war crimes for "torturing" prisoners -is NOT because we are the United States. It is because waterboarding isn't torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions! Period -end of discussion. Even if the terrorists were protected under the Geneva Conventions, waterboarding would NOT be considered torture! The left likes to think the Conventions are full of all sorts of their favorite touchy-feely garbage but in fact it is a harsh document dealing realistically with the inhumanity and brutality of war.

Only the American left are pretending it is "torture" and a couple of leftwing extremist groups but not a single signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions claims it is "torture". It is actually a tool used by other western nations, most notably the British who have been using it for decades. And where no one is suddenly screeching about it being "torture" and insisting it should never, ever be used! Even in the UK its rare use has been reserved for those believed to be withholding critical information that could potentially save lives. In spite of the drama queens who have flooded the internet with their wild claims about all the POTENTIAL waterboarding has to cause death and serious injury -there hasn't been a single instance of that occurring in the decades it has been used anywhere in the western hemisphere. No one has ever suffered permanent harm from being waterboarded -which is why even reporters have volunteered to be waterboarded! Whereas I really doubt they would volunteer to be stuck with red hot pokers or to have bamboo shoved under the nails or anything else they know would cause real pain. It is NOT a tool of routine use but that doesn't mean it should never be a tool at all! I don't understand the amoral cesspool of the left that given two situations, both of which they may find immoral -they will invariably choose the one that carries the highest risk of death for as many people as possible -but they consistently do. Which only makes sense when you realize these are people that have already significantly lowered the value they put on human life anyway. Devalued the lives of OTHER people of course -not their own. And the fact others value their own lives just as much as they do is no part of their thinking and something they see as "irrelevant".

The Geneva Conventions specifically allow for the harsh treatment of those believed to have important information, even VERY harsh treatment -because it is a document dealing in REALITY. And that reality is that the harsh treatment to get important information can both save lives and shorten the duration of war -and war is considered to be FAR more inhumane and brutal to many, many more than the use of harsh treatment of a person will be in order to get that information.

And as such, the Geneva Conventions ban REAL torture ONLY. The acts that are banned must cross a specific and bright line which is not a mushy, touchy-feely one either where signatory nations are left wondering about what is and is not allowed! Acts considered to be "torture" and therefore banned -MUST carry a REAL risk of death, a REAL risk of the loss of life or limb or a REAL risk of causing permanent disfigurement or the permanent loss of body function. The Geneva Conventions doesn't even ban all acts that carry ANY risk of death or permanent injury -just those that carry a real or significant one. Signatory nations are encouraged to reserve the harshest treatment just for officers and other high level personnel most likely to have important information and not routinely treat the common soldier in this same way.

Iraq is a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions. Several pilots were downed and captured during the Gulf War and they were routinely beaten as official policy of Saddam Hussein. Those beatings were not considered violations of the Geneva Conventions though -and he knew it and the US knew it. Even though there was a shrill outcry here and many people were insisting it somehow violated the Conventions -it didn't. The US insisted they didn't carry any important information therefore there was no justification for beating them but never claimed it violated the Conventions. The US only claimed he violated the Conventions when he put them on TV. Parading the captured publicly was done for the purpose of publicly humiliating them and therefore was banned under the Conventions. Hussein argued it was no violation since it was their PICTURES being shown in public and they were not personally exposed and subjected to the public. A downed female pilot was repeatedly raped during that war too which of course was a violation of the Conventions too. But beating our soldiers was NOT. They were subjected to daily beatings that lasted 2-4 HOURS every single day for months. Even as appalling and pointless those beatings were and in spite of the fact they weren't even being beaten for information but just because they were captured Americans, it still wasn't a violation of the Conventions.

So waterboarding is not only NOT considered to be torture under the Geneva Conventions even if the terrorists were covered by the protections of the Geneva Conventions -but JUSTIFIED under the Conventions as a means of gaining important information that could potentially save lives or gain an advantage that could potentially shorten the duration of war. Even if those engaged in war were never in the position to actually sign the Geneva Conventions -which does happen - it is possible for them to claim its protections anyway. If you want to claim the protections of the Geneva Convention even as a non-signatory -you first have to abide by them yourself. Which means if no American survives being captured by you, then turning around and complaining about someone being waterboarded isn't likely to gain you much sympathy except with US liberals who thrive on and love that kind of hypocrisy. I know the left loves to pretend the Geneva Conventions were intended to make it harder on signatory participants to wage war and intended to put them at greater disadvantage. But nothing could be further from the truth -the Geneva Conventions SPECIFICALLY state it is intended to make it more difficult for NON-SIGNATORY participants to wage war and to put them at greater disadvantage.

Now leaving aside the fact apparently no one can point out often enough for the left these people CANNOT claim the protections of the Geneva Conventions in the first place for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the fact they refuse to abide by any of it themselves -can we get real here and leave fantasy land once and for all?

If you REALLY think waterboarding is torture -aside from the fact we don't torture our own soldiers yet nearly two dozen were waterboarded themselves which is more than 7 times the number of terrorists who were waterboarded and reporters voluntarily endured waterboarding themselves which no one in their right mind would do if it were real torture -just keep it real and ask yourself one question. Which do you REALLY think those downed US pilots would have rather endured during the Gulf War? Being beaten for hours on a daily basis for three months? Or being waterboarded for as long Khalid Sheik Mohammed was -which was less than 180 seconds total and was the longest total time of waterboarding experience of the three terrorists who were waterboarded. I don't even need to think about that one and neither would anyone else with any common sense.

Torture isn't defined by whether it causes pain or fear because knowing you are going to get beaten every day at the same time certainly causes that too. It is defined by whether the act being done to the individual carries a significant risk of causing death or permanent injury. If you can't figure out why the Geneva Conventions didn't just outright ban any and all acts that can cause pain or fear even for those believed to possess critical information - you need to do some research and leave your bias and fantasy life behind. This is the REAL world, not a Disney adventure. NO nation would have ever signed such a document under any circumstances and anyone who cannot figure out why that is, is not occupying space in reality and is surely a danger even to himself.

 

[Valerie]

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

Then you have not been reading. I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.

Nor have I suggested it be 'legalized'. All I am saying is that we cannot tie the hands of those who are constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense and protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. There will likely always be times both in local law enforcement and militarily that value judgements will have to be made that don't fit the 'rule book' or standard set of laws. And, in my opinion, it is extremely naive to refuse to even look at that or consider it as a proper component of the national debate.

And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

And I have observed that almost nobody is willing to even consider whether that secret agent was justified in shooting off that toe,

or whether one would of necessity look the other way should enhanced interrogation be utilized in a matter in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were in imminent danger.

Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.

Foxfyre, I have no idea what you are talking about here... ^^^

I asked you this morning ^^^ what you are referring to...???

 

[Valerie]

I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.


And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

Well, I just gave you some pos rep to make up for the negativity, though I can't imagine who gave it to you since I haven't seen one person mention their Christian values.


Now if you could kindly enlighten me about your repeated reference to a Secret Service agent and a toe...................???

 

[xsited1]

That isn't how I'm reading it. The few who seem to be commenting--and I'm not going to say they are typical of ALL liberals/leftwingers--mostly seem to be saying that they would not use any form of discomfort or unpleasantry on a terrorist even if it meant their family would be brutally murdered or hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens would be killed. It's a matter of their 'Christian' principles which they would not violate under ANY circumstance.

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

Then you have not been reading. I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.

Nor have I suggested it be 'legalized'. All I am saying is that we cannot tie the hands of those who are constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense and protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. There will likely always be times both in local law enforcement and militarily that value judgements will have to be made that don't fit the 'rule book' or standard set of laws. And, in my opinion, it is extremely naive to refuse to even look at that or consider it as a proper component of the national debate.

And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

I consider neg rep torture.

BTW, if anyone has not yet voted in my poll, I believe it's still open:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/165821-was-waterboarding-worth-it.html

 

[GoneBezerk]

Terrorists are not legal combatants and don't belong to a specific military organization, so they are not equal to POWs and given protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Anyone trying to make terrorists POWs are trashing American military personnel that obey the Geneva Conventions, LOAC and any ROEs given to them in a war zone. Terrorists are not equal to military personnel and never should be...if a terrorist surrenders after trying to kill you, shoot him dead.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.


And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

Well, I just gave you some pos rep to make up for the negativity, though I can't imagine who gave it to you since I haven't seen one person mention their Christian values.


Now if you could kindly enlighten me about your repeated reference to a Secret Service agent and a toe...................???

The question is in this thread, it's in reference to a movie where a secret service agent had to get vital info form a scumbag to save a life.

I'll just ask it this way:

If your child was being held somewhere under the threat of death, and you got hold of one of those who was involved, and that was your only chance of finding out where your child was, would you resort to torture to save your childs life?

Answer honestly, because most people avoid it like the plague, and we know why.

 

[Valerie]

Yes, I agree with this.

Your agreement is of no actual value to the discussion, however, since that claim is unsupported, factually.

If instead of blowing off the top of Osama's head he had been taken alive and we discovered that he had info that we desperately needed to prevent him and his al qaeda pals from setting off a dirty bomb in the middle of town during the second leg of the Triple Crown (so much for the Pimlico race track?) --

torturing him MIGHT yield initially unreliable information. But possibly if we persisted in extracting the information from him by punishing him for every untruthful response, he just MIGHT get "trained" to respond promptly AND honestly.

Yet, torture makes us feel all icky. So as a matter of national policy and pride we should refrain from insisting that he give up every scrap of the plans to us?

Bye bye Baltimore? And the winner of the Preakness Stakes? A photo finish:

"American Virtue Intact" finishes a NOSE behind "Osamasdead Butgetsrevenge."

The top interrogation experts all say torture doesn't work:

The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn't work

The CIA's own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not "efficacious" in producing information

A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists

A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:
“The administration’s claims of having ‘saved thousands of Americans’ can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered — not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. … It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.”

The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn't work
A former US Air Force interrogator said that information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists

The number 2 terrorism expert for the State Department says torture doesn't work, and just creates more terrorists

A former high-level CIA officer states:
Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn't work.

A former CIA station chief in Pakistan who served at the agency for three decades doubts that torture saved any lives

Still don't believe it? These people also say torture doesn't produce usable intelligence:
Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."

Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."

Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that for a fact. "

Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work → Washington's Blog

Funny how some want to pretend this position of absolute repudiation is a "liberal" one... On top of the Military JAGS, Colin Powell, the author of the OP article, the OP himself and several conservative posters in this thread.......

We also have in agreement..............

Many former senior George W. Bush administration officials, on the other hand, have seriously questioned or directly challenged the legality of waterboarding. These include former State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow,[55][56] former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage,[57] former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge,[58] former head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith,[59] General David Petraeus,[60] General Ricardo Sanchez,[61] FBI Director Robert Mueller,[62] and former Convening Authority for the Guantanamo military commissions Susan J. Crawford.[63]

During his tenure as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003-2004, Jack Goldsmith put a halt to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique because of serious concern over its legality, but Goldsmith's order was quickly reversed by others within the George W. Bush administration.[59][64]

The Republican 2008 candidate for president, Senator John McCain who himself was tortured during his six years at the Hanoi Hilton, has stated unequivocally several times that he considers waterboarding to be torture:[65]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Classification as torture

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][34][35] politicians, war veterans,[36][37] intelligence officials,[38] military judges,[39] and human rights organizations.[21][40]



These arguments set off a furious response from the State Department and the military's uniformed lawyers, known as Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs). They argued that not applying Geneva protections could harm U.S. troops in this and future conflicts. Secretary Powell also argued in a memo to Gonzales and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that applying Geneva would allow the U.S. to take the moral high ground and would "present a positive international posture."

Frequently Asked Questions | The Torture Question | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[GoneBezerk]

Who cares WHO you found to support your bullshit. I can find others that say you're full of shit, like me.

Your agreement is of no actual value to the discussion, however, since that claim is unsupported, factually.

If instead of blowing off the top of Osama's head he had been taken alive and we discovered that he had info that we desperately needed to prevent him and his al qaeda pals from setting off a dirty bomb in the middle of town during the second leg of the Triple Crown (so much for the Pimlico race track?) --

torturing him MIGHT yield initially unreliable information. But possibly if we persisted in extracting the information from him by punishing him for every untruthful response, he just MIGHT get "trained" to respond promptly AND honestly.

Yet, torture makes us feel all icky. So as a matter of national policy and pride we should refrain from insisting that he give up every scrap of the plans to us?

Bye bye Baltimore? And the winner of the Preakness Stakes? A photo finish:

"American Virtue Intact" finishes a NOSE behind "Osamasdead Butgetsrevenge."

The top interrogation experts all say torture doesn't work:

The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn't work

The CIA's own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not "efficacious" in producing information

A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists

A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:
“The administration’s claims of having ‘saved thousands of Americans’ can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered — not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. … It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.”

The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn't work
A former US Air Force interrogator said that information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists

The number 2 terrorism expert for the State Department says torture doesn't work, and just creates more terrorists

A former high-level CIA officer states:
Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn't work.

A former CIA station chief in Pakistan who served at the agency for three decades doubts that torture saved any lives

Still don't believe it? These people also say torture doesn't produce usable intelligence:
Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."

Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."

Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that for a fact. "

Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work → Washington's Blog

Funny how some want to pretend this position of absolute repudiation is a "liberal" one... On top of the Military JAGS, Colin Powell, the author of the OP article, the OP himself and several conservative posters in this thread.......

We also have in agreement..............

Many former senior George W. Bush administration officials, on the other hand, have seriously questioned or directly challenged the legality of waterboarding. These include former State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow,[55][56] former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage,[57] former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge,[58] former head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith,[59] General David Petraeus,[60] General Ricardo Sanchez,[61] FBI Director Robert Mueller,[62] and former Convening Authority for the Guantanamo military commissions Susan J. Crawford.[63]

During his tenure as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003-2004, Jack Goldsmith put a halt to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique because of serious concern over its legality, but Goldsmith's order was quickly reversed by others within the George W. Bush administration.[59][64]

The Republican 2008 candidate for president, Senator John McCain who himself was tortured during his six years at the Hanoi Hilton, has stated unequivocally several times that he considers waterboarding to be torture:[65]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Classification as torture

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][34][35] politicians, war veterans,[36][37] intelligence officials,[38] military judges,[39] and human rights organizations.[21][40]



These arguments set off a furious response from the State Department and the military's uniformed lawyers, known as Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs). They argued that not applying Geneva protections could harm U.S. troops in this and future conflicts. Secretary Powell also argued in a memo to Gonzales and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that applying Geneva would allow the U.S. to take the moral high ground and would "present a positive international posture."

Frequently Asked Questions | The Torture Question | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Valerie]

I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.


And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

Well, I just gave you some pos rep to make up for the negativity, though I can't imagine who gave it to you since I haven't seen one person mention their Christian values.


Now if you could kindly enlighten me about your repeated reference to a Secret Service agent and a toe...................???

The question is in this thread, it's in refference to a movie where a secret service agent had to get vital info form a scumbag to save a life.

I'll just ask it this way:

If your child was being held somewhere under the threat of death, and you got hold of one of those who was involved, and that was your only chance of finding out where your child was, would you resort to torture to save your childs life?

Answer honestly, because most people avoid it like the plague, and we know why.

We're talking about official US policy on legal interrogations here, not hypothetical movie dramas...I am not familiar with that reference. I liked Ravi's answer as far as taking it to the personal level, though...

 

[Valerie]

Who cares WHO you found to support your bullshit. I can find others that say you're full of shit, like me.

Woopty doo. Go Berzerk, why don't ya...







The point is they are conservatives, not liberals.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well, I just gave you some pos rep to make up for the negativity, though I can't imagine who gave it to you since I haven't seen one person mention their Christian values.


Now if you could kindly enlighten me about your repeated reference to a Secret Service agent and a toe...................???

The question is in this thread, it's in refference to a movie where a secret service agent had to get vital info form a scumbag to save a life.

I'll just ask it this way:

If your child was being held somewhere under the threat of death, and you got hold of one of those who was involved, and that was your only chance of finding out where your child was, would you resort to torture to save your childs life?

Answer honestly, because most people avoid it like the plague, and we know why.

We're talking about official US policy on legal interrogations here, not hypothetical movie dramas...I am not familiar with that reference. I liked Ravi's answer as far as taking it to the personal level, though...

What is YOUR answer?

 

[Valerie]

The question is in this thread, it's in refference to a movie where a secret service agent had to get vital info form a scumbag to save a life.

I'll just ask it this way:

If your child was being held somewhere under the threat of death, and you got hold of one of those who was involved, and that was your only chance of finding out where your child was, would you resort to torture to save your childs life?

Answer honestly, because most people avoid it like the plague, and we know why.

We're talking about official US policy on legal interrogations here, not hypothetical movie dramas...I am not familiar with that reference. I liked Ravi's answer as far as taking it to the personal level, though...

What is YOUR answer?

That anyone's answer is irrelevant to US policy on legal interrogations.



There is no proof that torturing someone for info will result in the info you need to save a life, so it is a false premise as if it's a guarantee, also it would never occur to me to TORTURE anyone under those circumstances... And if I ever ended up breaking a law trying to get my child back I would plead my case before the court.

 

[Valerie]

I haven't seen one person post such a thing.

If you were in those circumstances it would be a personal decision. Afterward, you should be able to happily throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

We shouldn't legalize torture any more than we should legalize murder. If someone commits murder they are free to make their case as to why they committed murder and go through the justice system. The same rules should apply to torture.

Then you have not been reading. I have been neg repped for even suggesting such a thing and accused of advocating torture which I am not in the least. I have been advised that real Christians don't compromise their values.

Nor have I suggested it be 'legalized'. All I am saying is that we cannot tie the hands of those who are constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense and protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. There will likely always be times both in local law enforcement and militarily that value judgements will have to be made that don't fit the 'rule book' or standard set of laws. And, in my opinion, it is extremely naive to refuse to even look at that or consider it as a proper component of the national debate.

And not one person yet, right or left, has had the guts to say whether the Secret Service agent should have shot off that toe.

I consider neg rep torture.

BTW, if anyone has not yet voted in my poll, I believe it's still open:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/165821-was-waterboarding-worth-it.html

Funny, I was going to crack a joke about neg rep being much less tolerable than torture!

 

[GoneBezerk]

A lot of right wing lawyers don't have the balls to step out of the liberal lanes when it comes to law. They are part of the same community and want to be "respected" by their liberal colleagues, so they will go along with the BS.

Any lawyer that gives a terrorist the status of legal combatant on the battlefield and POW status when captured, is full of shit. I would tell that to any JAG officer that comes across my path.

Who cares WHO you found to support your bullshit. I can find others that say you're full of shit, like me.

Woopty doo. Go Berzerk, why don't ya...







The point is they are conservatives, not liberals.

 

[Wicked Jester]

We're talking about official US policy on legal interrogations here, not hypothetical movie dramas...I am not familiar with that reference. I liked Ravi's answer as far as taking it to the personal level, though...

What is YOUR answer?

That anyone's answer is irrelevant to US policy on legal interrogations.



There is no proof that torturing someone for info will result in the info you need to save a life, so it is a false premise as if it's a guarantee, also it would never occur to me to TORTURE anyone under those circumstances... And if I ever ended up breaking a law trying to get my child back I would plead my case before the court.

NO, it's not.....Torture is illegal in all 50 states.........And there is no proof that torture doesn't result in the info you need to save a life.....None whatsoever!

Personally, my twin daughters and son are my life........I would torture the piss out of somebody if that was all that was left to save their life, and take whatever punishment befell me......As long as they live, that's all that matters.

Now, why shouldn't we used enhanced interrogation to save american lives?

It's not illegal to deprive sleep, cause hunger, cause cold, subject to loud music, or use our version of waterboarding........Our version of waterboarding is the same used on our own troops......So, what the hell is the problem?

 

[Valerie]

A lot of right wing lawyers don't have the balls to step out of the liberal lanes when it comes to law. They are part of the same community and want to be "respected" by their liberal colleagues, so they will go along with the BS.

Any lawyer that gives a terrorist the status of legal combatant on the battlefield and POW status when captured, is full of shit. I would tell that to any JAG officer that comes across my path.

What about Colin Powell, John McCain, Tom Ridge, General Petraeus, General Sanchez and the rest of the US Military who stand to be compromised.............NOT LIBERALS.

Who cares WHO you found to support your bullshit. I can find others that say you're full of shit, like me.

Woopty doo. Go Berzerk, why don't ya...







The point is they are conservatives, not liberals.