[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’ve had occasion to speak in depth about this topic with Col. Stuart Herrington (I’m a friend of the family) who pretty much wrote the BOOK (both literally and figuratively) on interrogation. Have YOU?[/quote]
He seems opposed to the use of force. So did you listen when he spoke?
[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’ve had occasion to speak in depth about this topic with Col. Stuart Herrington (I’m a friend of the family) who pretty much wrote the BOOK (both literally and figuratively) on interrogation. Have YOU?[/quote]
He seems opposed to the use of force. So did you listen when he spoke?[/quote]
Nah, I just kinda sat there not paying attention… /sarcasm
I know what he wrote and I know what he said. Developing a rapport is the MOST effective way. Often times there is not time for that.
I was not asserting that Col. Herrington promoted the use of force. I referenced Col. Herrington in response to Bismark, who is fond of questioning people’s credentials by saying, “you are not qualified to have this discussion”. If I had a dollar for every time that asshat wrote that on this forum, I’d take us all out to lunch.
Col. Herrington and I discussed other options, tactics and techniques that were not in his book, but I’m not about to put words in the man’s mouth, so any opinions I write here are officially my own.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, etc… are NOT developing a rapport AND fall short of traditional torture. Therefore, their effectiveness is poor. THAT was my point.
EDIT: it was a CONVERSATION (several in fact), not a speech.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So, being sleep deprived, listing to Metallica and Red Hot Chili Peppers at a high volume, and sticking things up your rectum…
Sounds like the American college student experience. [/quote]
o_O what college did you go to??
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I HAVE been tied to a chair, beaten and had cigarettes put out on my skin…
[/quote]
What were the circumstances surrounding this?
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I HAVE been tied to a chair, beaten and had cigarettes put out on my skin…
[/quote]
What were the circumstances surrounding this?[/quote]
Foreplay?
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I HAVE been tied to a chair, beaten and had cigarettes put out on my skin…
[/quote]
What were the circumstances surrounding this?[/quote]
My mother’s second husband would do this (and other shit) while reading scripture to “cast the demons from me” when I was bad.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Nah, I just kinda sat there not paying attention… /sarcasm
I know what he wrote and I know what he said. Developing a rapport is the MOST effective way. Often times there is not time for that.
[/quote]
It all depends on the subject. Developing rapport is certainly effective in many cases but not for the hard cases. Counterintelligence operatives are specifically trained to resist such techniques as are AQ operatives. One of the final tests in SAS selection is a physical torture to reveal info(obviously limited) and it is said that everyone will crack eventually under physical stress. It’s a question of how long one can hold out. The fact that it is believed that everyone will crack under physical stress shows that torture is effective, although not always necessary and it needs to be kept in mind that some will admit to things they didn’t do and give false information to end the the session.
[quote]
I was not asserting that Col. Herrington promoted the use of force. I referenced Col. Herrington in response to Bismark, who is fond of questioning people’s credentials by saying, “you are not qualified to have this discussion”. If I had a dollar for every time that asshat wrote that on this forum, I’d take us all out to lunch.
Col. Herrington and I discussed other options, tactics and techniques that were not in his book, but I’m not about to put words in the man’s mouth, so any opinions I write here are officially my own.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, etc… are NOT developing a rapport AND fall short of traditional torture. Therefore, their effectiveness is poor. THAT was my point.
EDIT: it was a CONVERSATION (several in fact), not a speech.[/quote]
Again, rapport works in many if not most cases but the hard cases are trained to resist it. It’s a question of will power. The best interrogator will be able to read the subject; look into their soul and see what they’re made of. A well trained operative with strong will power will resist traditional techniques.
The interesting thing to keep in mind is that the kind of person who is likely to be an international terrorist is also likely to be suggestible and to lack the kind of will power needed to resist interrogation. That’s part of the reason they get sucked into something like vanguard jihadism in the first place.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Nah, I just kinda sat there not paying attention… /sarcasm
I know what he wrote and I know what he said. Developing a rapport is the MOST effective way. Often times there is not time for that.
[/quote]
It all depends on the subject. Developing rapport is certainly effective in many cases but not for the hard cases. Counterintelligence operatives are specifically trained to resist such techniques as are AQ operatives. One of the final tests in SAS selection is a physical torture to reveal info(obviously limited) and it is said that everyone will crack eventually under physical stress. It’s a question of how long one can hold out. The fact that it is believed that everyone will crack under physical stress shows that torture is effective, although not always necessary and it needs to be kept in mind that some will admit to things they didn’t do and give false information to end the the session.
[quote]
I was not asserting that Col. Herrington promoted the use of force. I referenced Col. Herrington in response to Bismark, who is fond of questioning people’s credentials by saying, “you are not qualified to have this discussion”. If I had a dollar for every time that asshat wrote that on this forum, I’d take us all out to lunch.
Col. Herrington and I discussed other options, tactics and techniques that were not in his book, but I’m not about to put words in the man’s mouth, so any opinions I write here are officially my own.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, etc… are NOT developing a rapport AND fall short of traditional torture. Therefore, their effectiveness is poor. THAT was my point.
EDIT: it was a CONVERSATION (several in fact), not a speech.[/quote]
Again, rapport works in many if not most cases but the hard cases are trained to resist it. It’s a question of will power. The best interrogator will be able to read the subject; look into their soul and see what they’re made of. A well trained operative with strong will power will resist traditional techniques.
The interesting thing to keep in mind is that the kind of person who is likely to be an international terrorist is also likely to be suggestible and to lack the kind of will power needed to resist interrogation. That’s part of the reason they get sucked into something like vanguard jihadism in the first place.[/quote]
But surely the “true believer,” to borrow the term from that book you recommended, would sometimes be so fanatical as to be extremely tough to crack.
Glad to see that this subforum hasn’t changed…
So the general verdict is that torture is ok. If I remember correctly, one of the posters here is from Israel, so their wievs are quite understandable, if not defendable.
But you folks in the U.S.? Do you even care about the great legacy the U.S. has brought to the world, warts and all, and how this torture scandal will continue to tarnish it? Innocent people have been abducted and tortured, confined and killed. A used car salesman in Germany, one guy in Afghanistan was caught because his neighbor wanted his property, just to name a few.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Nah, I just kinda sat there not paying attention… /sarcasm
I know what he wrote and I know what he said. Developing a rapport is the MOST effective way. Often times there is not time for that.
[/quote]
It all depends on the subject. Developing rapport is certainly effective in many cases but not for the hard cases. Counterintelligence operatives are specifically trained to resist such techniques as are AQ operatives. One of the final tests in SAS selection is a physical torture to reveal info(obviously limited) and it is said that everyone will crack eventually under physical stress. It’s a question of how long one can hold out. The fact that it is believed that everyone will crack under physical stress shows that torture is effective, although not always necessary and it needs to be kept in mind that some will admit to things they didn’t do and give false information to end the the session.
[quote]
I was not asserting that Col. Herrington promoted the use of force. I referenced Col. Herrington in response to Bismark, who is fond of questioning people’s credentials by saying, “you are not qualified to have this discussion”. If I had a dollar for every time that asshat wrote that on this forum, I’d take us all out to lunch.
Col. Herrington and I discussed other options, tactics and techniques that were not in his book, but I’m not about to put words in the man’s mouth, so any opinions I write here are officially my own.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, etc… are NOT developing a rapport AND fall short of traditional torture. Therefore, their effectiveness is poor. THAT was my point.
EDIT: it was a CONVERSATION (several in fact), not a speech.[/quote]
Again, rapport works in many if not most cases but the hard cases are trained to resist it. It’s a question of will power. The best interrogator will be able to read the subject; look into their soul and see what they’re made of. A well trained operative with strong will power will resist traditional techniques.
The interesting thing to keep in mind is that the kind of person who is likely to be an international terrorist is also likely to be suggestible and to lack the kind of will power needed to resist interrogation. That’s part of the reason they get sucked into something like vanguard jihadism in the first place.[/quote]
But surely the “true believer,” to borrow the term from that book you recommended, would sometimes be so fanatical as to be extremely tough to crack. [/quote]
True. But the personality traits of the “true believer” type include suggestibility. They may be fanatical but they are also very much influenced by others. So when they are taken out of the environment of radical Islam; when they’re separated from other jihadists and for an extended period of time they are only in contact with their interrogators, their worldview begins to disintegrate. This can be seen by the fact that a number of “hardcore” jihadists have actually renounced Islam in custody and taken an interest in all sorts of other world views. One well known jihadist became a Buddhist while in Gitmo. Of course this is a generalisation and is by no means any kind of reliable rule of measure or anything. But as a generalisation the fanaticism is often contingent upon it satisfying certain psychological needs of the individual and will often melt away in environments where it fails to do so.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Nah, I just kinda sat there not paying attention… /sarcasm
I know what he wrote and I know what he said. Developing a rapport is the MOST effective way. Often times there is not time for that.
[/quote]
It all depends on the subject. Developing rapport is certainly effective in many cases but not for the hard cases. Counterintelligence operatives are specifically trained to resist such techniques as are AQ operatives. One of the final tests in SAS selection is a physical torture to reveal info(obviously limited) and it is said that everyone will crack eventually under physical stress. It’s a question of how long one can hold out. The fact that it is believed that everyone will crack under physical stress shows that torture is effective, although not always necessary and it needs to be kept in mind that some will admit to things they didn’t do and give false information to end the the session.
[quote]
I was not asserting that Col. Herrington promoted the use of force. I referenced Col. Herrington in response to Bismark, who is fond of questioning people’s credentials by saying, “you are not qualified to have this discussion”. If I had a dollar for every time that asshat wrote that on this forum, I’d take us all out to lunch.
Col. Herrington and I discussed other options, tactics and techniques that were not in his book, but I’m not about to put words in the man’s mouth, so any opinions I write here are officially my own.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that waterboarding, stress positions, etc… are NOT developing a rapport AND fall short of traditional torture. Therefore, their effectiveness is poor. THAT was my point.
EDIT: it was a CONVERSATION (several in fact), not a speech.[/quote]
Again, rapport works in many if not most cases but the hard cases are trained to resist it. It’s a question of will power. The best interrogator will be able to read the subject; look into their soul and see what they’re made of. A well trained operative with strong will power will resist traditional techniques.
The interesting thing to keep in mind is that the kind of person who is likely to be an international terrorist is also likely to be suggestible and to lack the kind of will power needed to resist interrogation. That’s part of the reason they get sucked into something like vanguard jihadism in the first place.[/quote]
But surely the “true believer,” to borrow the term from that book you recommended, would sometimes be so fanatical as to be extremely tough to crack. [/quote]
True. But the personality traits of the “true believer” type include suggestibility. They may be fanatical but they are also very much influenced by others. So when they are taken out of the environment of radical Islam; when they’re separated from other jihadists and for an extended period of time they are only in contact with their interrogators, their worldview begins to disintegrate. This can be seen by the fact that a number of “hardcore” jihadists have actually renounced Islam in custody and taken an interest in all sorts of other world views. One well known jihadist became a Buddhist while in Gitmo. Of course this is a generalisation and is by no means any kind of reliable rule of measure or anything. But as a generalisation the fanaticism is often contingent upon it satisfying certain psychological needs of the individual and will often melt away in environments where it fails to do so.[/quote]
I would submit for your consideration that this is true for ALL “true believers” of ANY religion. They can’t possibly be very bright to believe all that stupid bullshit without question.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Glad to see that this subforom hasn’t changed…
So the general verdict is that torture is ok. If I remember correctly, one of the posters here is from Israel, so their wievs are quite understandable, if not defendable.
[/quote]
No you don’t remember correctly. None of the posters here commenting on torture are from Israel. Why are you trying to attribute support for torture to Israelis? Why do you say it’s “understandable?”
The US hasn’t brought a “legacy of torture” to the world and you know it. The US and the West in General have a legacy of human rights and of destroying regimes that threaten human rights; Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany etc. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and obscures the reality of modern history.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Glad to see that this subforum hasn’t changed…
So the general verdict is that torture is ok. If I remember correctly, one of the posters here is from Israel, so their wievs are quite understandable, if not defendable.
But you folks in the U.S.? Do you even care about the great legacy the U.S. has brought to the world, warts and all, and how this torture scandal will continue to tarnish it? Innocent people have been abducted and tortured, confined and killed. A used car salesman in Germany, one guy in Afghanistan was caught because his neighbor wanted his property, just to name a few.[/quote]
What liberal history class have YOU been taking? The US has done more good for the world than a hand full of torture scandals can tarnish.
EDIT: SM beat me to it.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Glad to see that this subforum hasn’t changed…
So the general verdict is that torture is ok. If I remember correctly, one of the posters here is from Israel, so their wievs are quite understandable, if not defendable.
But you folks in the U.S.? Do you even care about the great legacy the U.S. has brought to the world, warts and all, and how this torture scandal will continue to tarnish it? Innocent people have been abducted and tortured, confined and killed. A used car salesman in Germany, one guy in Afghanistan was caught because his neighbor wanted his property, just to name a few.[/quote]
Are you from France, sir?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Glad to see that this subforom hasn’t changed…
So the general verdict is that torture is ok. If I remember correctly, one of the posters here is from Israel, so their wievs are quite understandable, if not defendable.
[/quote]
No you don’t remember correctly. None of the posters here commenting on torture are from Israel. Why are you trying to attribute support for torture to Israelis? Why do you say it’s “understandable?”
The US hasn’t brought a “legacy of torture” to the world and you know it. The US and the West in General have a legacy of human rights and of destroying regimes that threaten human rights; Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany etc. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and obscures the reality of modern history.[/quote]
I agree generally with this sentiment, but generally having a good human rights record doesn’t excuse specific instances of illegal torture. And the U.S. did prosecute Imperial Japanese officers for the war crime of water-boarding U.S. P.O.W.s because it was prohibited as torture.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Glad to see that this subforom hasn’t changed…
So the general verdict is that torture is ok. If I remember correctly, one of the posters here is from Israel, so their wievs are quite understandable, if not defendable.
[/quote]
No you don’t remember correctly. None of the posters here commenting on torture are from Israel. Why are you trying to attribute support for torture to Israelis? Why do you say it’s “understandable?”
The US hasn’t brought a “legacy of torture” to the world and you know it. The US and the West in General have a legacy of human rights and of destroying regimes that threaten human rights; Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany etc. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and obscures the reality of modern history.[/quote]
I agree generally with this sentiment, but generally having a good human rights record doesn’t excuse specific instances of illegal torture. And the U.S. did prosecute Imperial Japanese officers for the war crime of water-boarding U.S. P.O.W.s because it was prohibited as torture.
[/quote]
American troops were prosecuted for water boarding detainees in the Vietnam war as late as 1983, for what it’s worth.
My Mom called me right after the attack crying, scared saying “We are under attack!” I won’t go into the whole conversation but that is how the phone call started.
Of all those victims, how many of their loved ones suffered from sleep deprivation?
How many mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, lovers were on those planes or in those buildings?
This wasn’t War, this was a cowardly act to strike fear in every American and kill as many as they could in the process. This was done by people that believe they were doing GOD work and that Americans should die!
They got off easy.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
My Mom called me right after the attack crying, scared saying “We are under attack!” I won’t go into the whole conversation but that is how the phone call started.
Of all those victims, how many of their loved ones suffered from sleep deprivation?
How many mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, lovers were on those planes or in those buildings?
This wasn’t War, this was a cowardly act to strike fear in every American and kill as many as they could in the process. This was done by people that believe they were doing GOD work and that Americans should die!
They got off easy.[/quote]
Flying a passenger jet into a building is hardly cowardly.
Yeah, I suppose dying on impact was a pretty painless way to go.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So when we waterboard, we lose our “Moral Authority”.
When we kill civilians with drones, we don’t.
Do I have that right?[/quote]
Killing civilians with drones can be a genuine accident or misjudgment. Torture never is
[/quote]
“Collateral damage” is KNOWN FACT with drone strikes. Those orders are made with full knowledge that innocent people are likely to die. [/quote]
Depending on where a conflict takes place, collateral damage may always be a known fact anyway. Fighting with any conventional weapons at all in the streets of a city is likely to kill civilians.
Torture is always deliberate.
Where do you draw the line between torture and advanced interrogation?
How do you establish rapport with detainees that already hate you as a matter of religious policy?
honest questions