[quote]sevenmoist wrote:
Damn what were some of you douchebags cheering for the enemy when they were cutting off americans heads. Some of you sound like queer ass college kids, oh wait you probably are. [/quote]
I was going to say something really clever in response, but then I saw your avatar and . . .uh . . .yeah . . .what were you saying . . . oh yeah those college kids - you tell 'em . . . nice avatar . . .
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
<<< The questions assume that IF you can approve of a scenario in which you would kill to prevent killing - why would you not agree with not killing and only depriving someone of sleep in the same scenario for the same outcome - is it that hard for you to understand a simple logical progression without getting distracted by the nuances we are negating by the original questions? >>>
That is indeed exactly the question.
Only in place of “depriving someone of sleep”, I would insert whatever means that are best determined effective for the individual in question.
What we do if they don’t talk? Throw a yellow flag and give them 15 yards? Do we just say “oh well, sorry you folks may have to die, but at least we’re being nice?”
Do you want to explain to the families that you had a man who could have provided intel that would have saved Dad, Hubby, Mom, Wife, or child, but please take comfort in the fact that we took the moral high ground?
Did we indeed?
[/quote]
Yep - still going to join your tribe - can we use rock salt and razor blades?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
This is all a bunch of emotional crybaby bullshit from people that gave up using logic and reason to asses any situation presented to them. They are happy to let big brother and the press tell them what they should think.[/quote]
No, it’s from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. From the article:
Yeah, those emotional crybaby pussies should have just asked a real expert like dickey.
The Spectator’s Alex Massie makes two very good points:
“And yet our old friends at National Review - in these instances Mark Hemingway and Cliff May - remain determined to make the case that the United States indulged in a more civilised form of waterboarding than, say, the Japanese during World War Two or the Khmer Rouge. When that’s the bar you set for yourself you are, I fear, implicitly conceding defeat. Indeed, boasting about the presence of doctors and psychologists at waterboarding sessions actually bolsters the argument that this is torture, since if it weren’t these “professionals” wouldn’t need to be there at all. By their own words may they be damned.”
and
“PS: The huffing and puffing that this none of this can be torture since some US troops experience some of these methods at SERE school - albeit with the certain knowledge and vital caveat that they won’t be killed - is, naturally, weapons-grade tripe. SERE is designed to prepare troops for the possibility of being tortured. If you then use the methods the North Koreans might use to torture American pilots against the prisoners you hold yourself you are, quite clearly, reducing yourself to the North Korean level. That is to say, you are torturing people. In a real, but in recent years sadly optimistic sense, that is Un-American.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/3561321/torture-and-porn-stuff-you-know-when-you-see-it.thtml
[quote]dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
If you torture me I’ll tell you anything I think you want to know, whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter if it will make you stop.
How do you know what i want to hear? you would not make a very good interrigator if you let on to what you want to hear or know already.
Ok, so you’ve just proved the whole point of why torture doesn’t produce actionable intelligence.
Here’s a 2002 US military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency report:
In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance, the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the interrogation process is to assess the prisoner’s knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access should drive the questioning process. )
Right. Some may not know how to effetively interrogate. What you should be looking to do is fill in blanks in a large body of information you already have. Otherwise you are just torturing for the sake of torturing.
Why would you bother to interogate someone if you know it will fruitless. If you can’t tell if the information is bullshit, you shouldn’t be interogating. Our guy aren’t some third world ameteur thugs.
Or you have two or more people that should have the same info. An intellegent interogator should be able to work this to their advantage.
It appears the simpletons that appose harsh interogation have the wrong impression. They think it’s a bunch of ameteur thugs beating the shit out people and screaming “tell me what you know”. These guys to do this for a living. They study interogation techniques. They use all the tools available to them. They are well versed in gathering accurate information.
[/quote]
Actually, that’s largely untrue. One of the reasons for the panicked rush to torture in the wake of 9/11 was that our cultural and language knowledge of the people we were fighting was minimal, so we substituted brutality to get information. Contrast that with the two most effective interrogators of WWII, an urbane Luftwaffe officer who spoke perfect English and the Marine who had been a missionary in Japan:
[quote]tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
This is all a bunch of emotional crybaby bullshit from people that gave up using logic and reason to asses any situation presented to them. They are happy to let big brother and the press tell them what they should think.
No, it’s from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. From the article:
The document was included among July 2002 memorandums that described severe techniques used against Americans in past conflicts and the psychological effects of such treatment. JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains pilots and others to resist hostile questioning.
Yeah, those emotional crybaby pussies should have just asked a real expert like dickey.
[/quote]
Wait, so we are suppose to be worried about the psychological damage of enemy combantants? Did I ever say there weren’t going to be psychological damage. I said we shouldn’t care. What are you not getting here?
If the captured enemy combatants cannot provide any useful information, they won’t be captured…if you know what i mean.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Those of you spouting the “extreme interrogations” line and resorting to disgusting, Hannity-esque trivializations of what we’ve done to people should really watch the documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side.” We aren’t talking about making guys pull all-nighters while listening to bad pop music. We are talking about breaking people’s minds and psyches. That is torture even if it never leaves a mark.
Dude - when the line is crossed, it is crossed and no one would condone the actions committed in that case. I would agree with you 100% that this type of behavior is intolerable, criminal and illegal (that might be a bit repetitious and redundant). As I have said repeatedly throughout this thread - beatings are torture. Plain and simple.
If this was systemic of the whole military - then I would agree with you that it would need to be addressed. But you don’t prove systemic reality - you have only illustrated thru a singular horrific case that torture is really torture - well outside the keeping of the ROE’s and guidelines established to protect the lives of detainees.
[/quote]
I’m assuming you’ve actually seen the film, and are referring to the title case (the torture and murder of an Afghan cab driver who was very likely just in the wrong place at the wrong time). You’re ignoring two huge issues:
That the beatings and deaths of detainees in U.S. custody were a direct result of a “take the gloves off” atmosphere that filtered down from the highest office in the land. To be tacitly encouraging this kind of treatment and then shocked at its excesses is hard to take.
The film spends a considerable amount of time looking at sensory deprivation and dehumanization and their effect on the minds of the people we have done that to. You are ignoring this.
The New Yorker also had a good, long article on solitary confinement recently, which said much the same thing.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
The Spectator’s Alex Massie makes two very good points:
“And yet our old friends at National Review - in these instances Mark Hemingway and Cliff May - remain determined to make the case that the United States indulged in a more civilised form of waterboarding than, say, the Japanese during World War Two or the Khmer Rouge. When that’s the bar you set for yourself you are, I fear, implicitly conceding defeat. Indeed, boasting about the presence of doctors and psychologists at waterboarding sessions actually bolsters the argument that this is torture, since if it weren’t these “professionals” wouldn’t need to be there at all. By their own words may they be damned.”
[/quote]
so? who is going is going to set the arbitary line between interogation and torture? Will the line continue to move? What’s wrong with the line drawn by others?
Again, who should draw the line on what’s effective and what will save lives? The experts or crybaby liberals?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
The Spectator’s Alex Massie makes two very good points:
“And yet our old friends at National Review - in these instances Mark Hemingway and Cliff May - remain determined to make the case that the United States indulged in a more civilised form of waterboarding than, say, the Japanese during World War Two or the Khmer Rouge. When that’s the bar you set for yourself you are, I fear, implicitly conceding defeat. Indeed, boasting about the presence of doctors and psychologists at waterboarding sessions actually bolsters the argument that this is torture, since if it weren’t these “professionals” wouldn’t need to be there at all. By their own words may they be damned.”
and
“PS: The huffing and puffing that this none of this can be torture since some US troops experience some of these methods at SERE school - albeit with the certain knowledge and vital caveat that they won’t be killed - is, naturally, weapons-grade tripe. SERE is designed to prepare troops for the possibility of being tortured. If you then use the methods the North Koreans might use to torture American pilots against the prisoners you hold yourself you are, quite clearly, reducing yourself to the North Korean level. That is to say, you are torturing people. In a real, but in recent years sadly optimistic sense, that is Un-American.”
well - that’s it - GDollar found someone who wrote something that he agrees with and that makes all of the rest of us wrong - because if it is print and you agree with it - that’s all of the proof we’ll ever need.
After all - we could never find anyone who would write something that we would agree with it and provide counter-article proof that he was wrong . . .
That’s called an Appeal to Authority and is considered a logical fallacy- if you cannot form a logical counter argument on your own - don’t waste your time resorting to such pointless and poor tactics . . . .
oH sorry - I was being mean and humiliating to you, wasn’t I? That is so un-american - i shall go flog myself until I repent of my wicked politically incorrect thinking . . . better yet- can you water board me until I confess to being a meany?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Damn what were some of you douchebags cheering for the enemy when they were cutting off americans heads. Some of you sound like queer ass college kids, oh wait you probably are.
I was going to say something really clever in response, but then I saw your avatar and . . .uh . . .yeah . . .what were you saying . . . oh yeah those college kids - you tell 'em . . . nice avatar . . .[/quote]
No worries , I did’nt mean to bunch all college age kids together but seriously their are some real pansies.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I’m assuming you’ve actually seen the film, and are referring to the title case (the torture and murder of an Afghan cab driver who was very likely just in the wrong place at the wrong time). You’re ignoring two huge issues:
That the beatings and deaths of detainees in U.S. custody were a direct result of a “take the gloves off” atmosphere that filtered down from the highest office in the land. To be tacitly encouraging this kind of treatment and then shocked at its excesses is hard to take.
The film spends a considerable amount of time looking at sensory deprivation and dehumanization and their effect on the minds of the people we have done that to. You are ignoring this.
The New Yorker also had a good, long article on solitary confinement recently, which said much the same thing.[/quote]
What a close-minded conservative stooping to watch a piece leftist single-sided propaganda designed to present the worst case scenario in a limited setting with no counter-point presentation or a full and thorough review of the entire picture?
Why, yes I did - and I made the concessions that I made above based on the specific instances pointed out.
I have never said that beatings were anything but torture anywhere in this thread - so congratulations for proving me true to myself.
Are we now moving into a discussion about sensory deprivation and dehumanization? Glad to go there with you.
DO you want to address this from the legal and military standpoint of the US or from a personal perspective, or from a perfect world perspective? You tell me what field you want to play on and I’ll bring my best game.
What - another leftist rag had another leftist article condemning the right approach to solitary confinement? (did you see what I did there?)
[quote]dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
This is all a bunch of emotional crybaby bullshit from people that gave up using logic and reason to asses any situation presented to them. They are happy to let big brother and the press tell them what they should think.
No, it’s from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. From the article:
The document was included among July 2002 memorandums that described severe techniques used against Americans in past conflicts and the psychological effects of such treatment. JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains pilots and others to resist hostile questioning.
Yeah, those emotional crybaby pussies should have just asked a real expert like dickey.
Wait, so we are suppose to be worried about the psychological damage of enemy combantants? Did I ever say there weren’t going to be psychological damage. I said we shouldn’t care. What are you not getting here? [/quote]
Since you seem to be unable to read the original JPRA document yourself: it make no mention of “psychological damage”. The psychological effects they refer to are primarily the tendancy of torture subjects to say anything they can think of to make the torture stop. It’s really not all that hard to grasp. From the document that you apparently won’t read:
Again, this is from the U.S. military agency that ran SERE training. I completely understand why you say we shouldn’t care, what you don’t seem to get is that the whole exercise is pointless at best.
[quote]tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Since you seem to be unable to read the original JPRA document yourself: it make no mention of “psychological damage”. The psychological effects they refer to are primarily the tendancy of torture subjects to say anything they can think of to make the torture stop. It’s really not all that hard to grasp. From the document that you apparently won’t read:
(U) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF INTERROGATION: The primary objective of interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator’s ability to achieve this objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life-has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption. (NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)
Again, this is from the U.S. military agency that ran SERE training. I completely understand why you say we shouldn’t care, what you don’t seem to get is that the whole exercise is pointless at best.
[/quote]
OOOHH - we have primary source material - wonderful.
OK - your point (made without any unnecessary violence to nails - thank you) seems to be that since intelligence gathered under duress derived from physiological and psychological pressure is useless and that makes the entire process “pointless at best”
You found the document, but obviously cannot understand it.
I quote - “The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.”
This conclusion is derived from this footnote: “The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.”
OK - now bear with me, my valium, prozak and vodka addled mind may not work as well as I hope it well . . . The basic underlying premise is that "the reliability and accuracy (of the) information must be questioned.
A couple of observations -
they did not say you would not get information. Indeed, it seems implied that you will definitely get information.
It does not say that the information will be false - it only states that it’s veracity must be questioned.
So, since we do not make decisions based on single source information - and the military is already obviously aware the info might be bad - they will verify the information before acting upon it - if it was false - no biggy . . .anyone got that Aguilera CD and the airhorn, time to wake Achmed up again . . .
And as has already been proven - we did get actionable accurate and reliable information that prevented terrorist attacks - so it would appear to me that your point is moot, meaningless, irrelevant . . . .
Wow - my brain was really worn out from that difficult rebuttal - or perhaps its the pills- can never tell . . . ooohhh look an aardvark . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
If you would do A to prevent D, and you would do B to prevent D, then why would you not do C to prevent D
[/quote]
Because it is not necessary that C is logically connected to A, B or D.
It isn’t necessary to physically abuse someone to extract info. Using these methods is no harsher than many club initiations for fraternities etc.
Also the Geneva convention which is stupid to begin with doesn’t apply to people not wearing the uniform. These guys aren’t.
but why you can shoot someone with a fmj round , but a hollow point is cruel, i do not understand.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
<<< The questions assume that IF you can approve of a scenario in which you would kill to prevent killing - why would you not agree with not killing and only depriving someone of sleep in the same scenario for the same outcome - is it that hard for you to understand a simple logical progression without getting distracted by the nuances we are negating by the original questions? >>>
That is indeed exactly the question.
Only in place of “depriving someone of sleep”, I would insert whatever means that are best determined effective for the individual in question.
What we do if they don’t talk? Throw a yellow flag and give them 15 yards? Do we just say “oh well, sorry you folks may have to die, but at least we’re being nice?”
Do you want to explain to the families that you had a man who could have provided intel that would have saved Dad, Hubby, Mom, Wife, or child, but please take comfort in the fact that we took the moral high ground?
Did we indeed?
Yep - still going to join your tribe - can we use rock salt and razor blades?[/quote]
The western world has completely forgotten how ugly the world is and how fragile freedom is. If we are unwilling to grit our teeth and do some things in the dark, those who ARE willing will be coming for us.
See, I’ll be called a paranoid war mongering psycho for such views. Oh how that overjoys our enemies. Uncle Ho has taught the world well.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
It isn’t necessary to physically abuse someone to extract info. Using these methods is no harsher than many club initiations for fraternities etc.
Also the Geneva convention which is stupid to begin with doesn’t apply to people not wearing the uniform. These guys aren’t.
but why you can shoot someone with a fmj round , but a hollow point is cruel, i do not understand.[/quote]
Let’s take a chalkboard and set up 2 columns, one headed “things we are willing to do to win” and the other, you guessed it, “things we are not willing to do to win”.
If there is anything in the second column and you are contemplating engaging an enemy who is competent in the least, you enter the conflict impaired before the first shot is fired.
Make a habit out of an empty second column and you are defeated already… by somebody… it just hasn’t actually occurred yet.
Moral high ground is defined by the objectives of a war, not the methods. Having said that, I am not condoning an abandonment of all restraint willy nilly. The methods should be indispensable to the accomplishment of the mission. if not then they are both useless and immoral. I don’t believe in brutalizing people because you’re pissed. If it doesn’t contribute to the accomplishment of the mission it is capricious and wrong. If there is another as readily available and equally effective alternative I’d take it. If not, then the mission must be won or we are playing useless games with the lives of everybody involved.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It isn’t necessary to physically abuse someone to extract info. Using these methods is no harsher than many club initiations for fraternities etc.
Also the Geneva convention which is stupid to begin with doesn’t apply to people not wearing the uniform. These guys aren’t.
but why you can shoot someone with a fmj round , but a hollow point is cruel, i do not understand.
Let’s take a chalkboard and set up 2 columns, one headed “things we are willing to do to win” and the other, you guessed it, “things we are not willing to do to win”.
If there is anything in the second column and you are contemplating engaging an enemy who is competent in the least, you enter the conflict impaired before the first shot is fired.
Make a habit out of an empty second column and you are defeated already… by somebody… it just hasn’t actually occurred yet.
Moral high ground is defined by the objectives of a war, not the methods. Having said that, I am not condoning an abandonment of all restraint willy nilly. The methods should be indispensable to the accomplishment of the mission. if not then they are both useless and immoral. I don’t believe in brutalizing people because you’re pissed. If it doesn’t contribute to the accomplishment of the mission it is capricious and wrong. If there is another as readily available and equally effective alternative I’d take it. If not, then the mission must be won or we are playing useless games with the lives of everybody involved.[/quote]
I agree totally. I don’t want to do anything out of anger, I want to do it to gain info. What you remind me is how people want to punish. Many people when faced with a horrible criminal say things like they should be fill in the blank with a horrible way to die like their victim suffered.
Not me, shoot them in the back of the head with a 22, take their body to the furnace and burn them. Don’t do it out of anger, do it like you would clean out a mouse trap.
…the moral high ground has become a slippery slope for most of you…
Morality only works when all participants agree on a common set of rules. Whether you make morality relativistic or objective, morality is a ‘guidebook’ of sorts to which the actors appeal.
A terrorist refuses to abide by the rules of morality. Therefore, he/she may not then appeal to those same rules when captured. They may NOT have their cake and eat it to.
Having forfeited their rights, they must then depend on the kindness of their captors. Waterboarding and loud music demonstrate to all the world that the USA is the kindest, most noble, and most moral country in the history of the world — we afford a measure of moral countenance to those who themselves reject same.