Torture! (Here we go)

[HeloDude]

There were. At the International Military Tribunals for the Far East (also known as the Tokyo Trials) in 1946, "water torture" or the "water cure" was listed as one of the charges when prosecuting/executing Japanese war criminals.

I was referring to the more current issue that this report is referring to. If people broke the law since 2001, then why haven't there been any prosecutions?

[ClearedHot]

Or what do I do if someone kidnaps my kids, but I'm not sure who? Just start waterboarding everyone who lives in the neighborhood, whether they are guilty or not, and hope I get lucky?

Way to completely AVOID the question like a puss....they have your kids, you know you have the guy, what do you do?

[pawnman]

Way to completely AVOID the question like a puss....they have your kids, you know you have the guy, what do you do?

Something that personal, I'm 100% sure I have the guy? I'm probably not above torturing him if that's what it takes.

The question is, are we willing to build national policy based on an emotional reaction to a worst-case scenario? Or would we rather build national policy in a more rational way?

[HeloDude]

The question is, are we willing to build national policy based on an emotional reaction to a worst-case scenario?

Of course we are. Look at gun control legislation (both legislation that has passed and attempted to be passed) by progressives.

[Mark1]

Check out 6:45-7:20 with a focus on 7:05-7:20. Jesus Christ, do you mind at least acknowledging the dead man, you asshole?

Apparently he's got a slightly different take on Blackstone's Formulation ("better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer").

It makes me physically sick that these kinds of people represent me.

And before anybody makes a comment about the source of the video, I didn't watch the program that's showing the 'Meet the Press' clip. I just searched for 'Dick Cheney Meet the Press" on YouTube and this was the first result that had what I was looking for, so if they're a horrible freedom hating liberal news program, I don't need to hear it.

[Warrior]

I was referring to the more current issue that this report is referring to. If people broke the law since 2001, then why haven't there been any prosecutions?

I saw a news article last night that I can't find again at the moment or id link it that said Dubya canceled a trip to Switzerland in February over concerns he would be arrested.

It's ok, we'll keep him in Texas.

[pawnman]

The more we are willing to torture people, the more the terrorists win. Their goal is to make us so afraid that we are willing to change our behavior. In this case, they've convinced us to discard the morals, treaties, and laws that we've taken decades to build. Face it guys...the terrorists are winning. All it takes is a tweet from a terrorist to the FBI to make our senior leadership warn us about our online presence. We're not only willing to torture people, we're now willing to scream that people opposed to torture are siding with the terrorists. We've spent the last decade trying to work with the Afghan people to craft a government, and yet we can't refer to them as anything other than savages.

The terrorists have certainly gotten into our heads at this stage. We're so terrified of another attack that people shrug when we torture detainees, many of whom have no known ties to terrorism, and in spite of the fact that torture produces poor intel. We're so terrified of another attack that we sheepishly gather in long lines to remove our shoes, belts, and watches so that TSA can scan our junk in a high-end X-ray machine. We're so terrified of another attack that we believe the government is justified in scooping up all the data about every phone call, email, and text we send.

The terrorists are winning, and unless we are willing to say that we are not going to change our way of life every time one of them puts out a video, that we are going to keep our moral compass no matter how angry or hurt or sad we are, then they will continue winning. Sure, we'll pile up the body count...but it's going to cost our soul.

[pawnman]

You're using the term "we" a helluva lot.

We being Americans.

[pintail21]

Gee, I don't recall that working since the SERE cadre knew the truth to begin with.

And Wikipedia is hardly a go-to source for anything that you want to base policy or opinion on.

LS

Talk to your SERE folks and they will have dozens of examples of it working in real life.

Funny, at my last staff job in the waning days of the Bush admin we were reviewing cases of the "completely innocent" at Gitmo and making recommendations on why someone should continue to be held or not. In many of those cases, the U.S. was willing to release them but no country was willing to accept them. All those completely innocent people with no country willing to accept them...huh?

That was several years ago and many things have changed since then but funny how no one wants some of these guys, including their home countries. Something is not quite right in that situation.

If you were thrown in jail, flown halfway around the world and held indefinitely with no charge, legal rights and you were tortured wouldn't you be a little bit resentful towards the western world? There are plenty of examples of normal people or criminals being converted to islamic extremism in jail and it is understandable that a government would be cautious about that. If your senator or congressman went to the feds and sought to resettle gitmo detainees in your district do you think they'll be reelected? It's a classic "not in my backyard" example.

I don't condone or condemn the interrogation program, the report was EXTREMELY partisan and simply ignores or lies about some of the intel that was retrieved.

What intel did it ignore? Do you have an open or high side source on that? I've seen a lot of the talking heads mention that but with no proof or supporting information.

Edited December 17, 2014 by pintail21

[DirkDiggler]

Excellent discussion on Hannity tonight (I don't watch often but happened to be flipping through).

The discussion included a taped radio segment with Justice Antonie Scalia (had the opportunity to debate him 1v1 in an academic environment...discussion for another day but a wicked smart dude), in this segment Scalia posits an extreme case where you capture a person who you know for sure has information about a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles that WILL kill millions of people in a short period of time...he wonders then if people would still say torture is terrible. Immediately afterwards Ken Roth from human Rights Watch chimes in and says that is a straw man argument. Roth then goes on to classify the Scalia scenario as a "hypothetical", "I live in the real world."

Hannity then hits Roth with a scenario about his children being kidnapped and he catches the person that has his kids, "What would you do to get the information about where your kids are"....Roth answers, "well as a prosecutor I've found it effective to establish rapport with the person I was interrogating." UFB!

This scenario is taking the question out of context. I don't think anyone on this board would resolutely condemn an individual for, in the heat of the moment based on intensely personal emotions, attempting to protect their children. This directly translates into heat of battle decisions In any war, you'd have to be completely naive to believe that prisoners are going to to be treated with kid gloves by the soldiers that initially capture them. Field interrogations discussed by other members of this board aka my buddy just got blown up by an IED, where's the next one or I'm kicking the shit out of you are going to happen with any military regardless of the level of discipline. Its a consequence of war and I'm not gonna judge guys for actions like that taken in the heat of battle.

The difference here is that these enhanced interrogation techniques, torture, ass play, whatever you want to call it aren't being conducted by operators and soldiers in the field. They're being conducted by three letter agency personnel far removed from the battle field and combat. That's the equivalent, in Hannity's example above, of you capturing the guy who has your kids and then turning them over to the cops to get tortured. The government has screwed up my pay, travel arrangements and countless other things in my short 11 years in the military. Do you really want them given the authority to conduct these sort of actions, mostly without oversight from other parts of the government?

I don't know about anybody else, but I sure as shit don't want to live in a country that officially sanctions shit like that. There's lots of countries across the globe where the government and police forces routinely torture and abuse both their own citizens and citizens from other countries. Countries like that make me glad I was born in America. There's a recent article on stripes that I'm too lazy to link that shows all the military JAGs that were consulted about enhanced interrogations had serious reservations or were downright against their use. McCrystal in Iraq was vehemently against stuff like that as well. If you want to say that terrorists aren't afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention that's fine, I'll buy your argument even though I strongly believe in continuing to kill them where we find them. Then we treat them like criminals and prosecute them. The last time I checked, even the worst criminals in our prison system aren't tortured. If these activities were so acceptable then why didn't we bring captured terrorists to Leavenworth and string them up by their arms there instead of doing it in countries like Poland, Romania, etc?

The simple pendulum swings both ways. After 9/11, there was a lot of fear and a lot of uncertainty; I personally believe some mistakes were made. I think we're good enough as a people and a country to admit when we've ed up. Continuing to argue that torture is a viable and justifiable method to get information is only going to hurt us as a country.

[brickhistory]

I'm digging the "we're better than that" and the general "I'm outraged" tone by many.

We aren't. We generally win, however.

That, and continuing to have my family and me process oxygen, is much more important than how goat fcukers who, surprise, don't and aren't going to like us anyway.

If they don't have oil and they don't fcuk with us, I believe we generally leave them be.

If they do, well, then I'm not so squeemish.

For all the chest-thumping "we follow the rules," please explain to me the rules in the couple of years post-9/11 when we were bat-sh1t scared of another such attack which was, and is, highly plausible.

Besides the death and economic disruption (disintergration) following a second massive attack, will anyone admit to the maaaaaavise second-guessing and pointing of fingers towards those "who didn't keep us safe?"

We don't throw Americans in jail without cause. Except during the Civil War and during WWII, we did.

Were we right? Nope.

Did those in power, at the time, with no way of knowing what the future held, doing what they deemed necessary to prevent further massive loss of U.S. life and physical damage? Yep.

Go ahead, mount up on the high horse.

Don't b1tch and moan about those heroes in our past who ignored the rules to save their bros by flying in spite of the ROE, the weather, etc, etc, etc, or whatever rules said "don't do it."

We hold those guys up as heroes because they bucked "The Man."

On this, not so much.

Or a single comment about whacking two Americans without due process on the orders of the President. That seems to be ok, but dunking a bad guy, oh the horror.

I also notice that the media is either ignoring or chastising the American public in a recent poll regarding the "torture" - only 21% were against. The rest were either ok with it or "meh" at worst.

[Lensatic]

To me, the enemy sets the rules.

LS

[Homestar]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30507836

Pakistan Taliban kills 132 school kids and 9 staff.

Even the Afghan Taliban is like, "What the..."

This is who we're dealing with. Tell me again how sad it is that KSM was waterboarded 183 times. Tell me again how that makes us "no better than the terrorists." I appreciate that in the 1st world we can have this discussion without resorting to violence, but this event in Pakistan should serve as a stark reminder of what's at stake when someone in the CIA interrogates a terrorist.

[brickhistory]

I wonder if those in the high horse brigade ever wonder about the massive risk aversion incentive (again) this self-loathing behavior begets?

Then those same fingers get to point (again) when something goes "boom!" for not doing 'enough.'

Win/win.

[Mark1]

I'm digging the "we're better than that" and the general "I'm outraged" tone by many.

We aren't. We generally win, however.

Yeah, you're right, we aren't. That's the point. We should be. And it's been quite a while since we've 'won' one.

That, and continuing to have my family and me process oxygen, is much more important than how goat fcukers who, surprise, don't and aren't going to like us anyway.

It has nothing to do with making our enemies love us.

I know this is going to be taken personally, but I assure you I don't mean it to be inflammatory:

This is exactly the problem. The country collectively acts selfishly when emotion is involved, but then a couple years down the road still tries to stand on the pedestal and say we're better than the rest.

'Whatever it takes to keep my family and I safe' with no regard for the bigger picture and the greater good. Tap the phones, torture the bad guys for intel, hastily invade Iraq. Then two months down the line we see some other entity acting selfishly and get all indignant about it.

Beheading journalists on camera serves a purpose for ISIS, whether you believe it or not. Don't get righteous and bent out of shape over it when it happens, because they're just acting selfishly with no regard for others, same as us if we condone torture when it's convenient. It's just more personally painful when the shoe is on the other foot (and no, I'm not suggesting that if we set the example, ISIS will follow...it's not about that).

For all the chest-thumping "we follow the rules," please explain to me the rules in the couple of years post-9/11 when we were bat-sh1t scared of another such attack which was, and is, highly plausible.

Besides the death and economic disruption (disintergration) following a second massive attack, will anyone admit to the maaaaaavise second-guessing and pointing of fingers towards those "who didn't keep us safe?"

...Then those same fingers get to point (again) when something goes "boom!" for not doing 'enough.'

The rules are that you accept the fact that living freely comes with a cost...and that the cost is worth paying.

I don't point my fingers when something goes 'boom'. To the contrary, I would accept a 9/11 magnitude attack on a regular basis as the cost of living freely without concern...even if it affected me personally (I'm aware that I'm in the minority here, but I mean what I say...and I'm not saying I wouldn't support doing everything reasonable to prevent it, but it wouldn't involve subverting the Constitution or the ideals we claim to stand for).

This country gave G.W. the keys to the cupboard post 9/11 because it was collectively acting on emotion. I'd wish that our politicians could be counted on to act logically under strain even when the citizens are delusional with emotion, but no. Instead we got the Patriot Act, and all other assortment of Executive mandates behind the scenes. They are collectively some of the most counter-Constitutional acts that we've seen in decades (I don't need examples of Civil War era government overreach...horrible behavior doesn't justify bad behavior, and if everything we did in the past was some sort of benchmark of acceptability, then I guess we need to bring back slavery and prevent women from voting).

For god's sake, John Ashcroft eventually cried foul and made it known he thought the administration [that he was employed by] was way out of line, and he was about as far from a Constitutional savior as you can get.

I also notice that the media is either ignoring or chastising the American public in a recent poll regarding the "torture" - only 21% were against. The rest were either ok with it or "meh" at worst.

You know that guy, Gruber? We'll he was right. The American people are stupid.

Despite what we're taught in elementary school, the governance structure in the U.S. is absolutely not a 'majority rules' Democracy. There's plenty of dumb shit we'd be doing if we acted on population surveys. The Bill of Rights is all about protecting minority positions against majority rule. The majority of people in this country would object to carrying a gun in a lot of circumstances, burning a flag, or being a Jew. There aren't laws reflecting that majority opinion for a reason.

Or a single comment about whacking two Americans without due process on the orders of the President. That seems to be ok, but dunking a bad guy, oh the horror.

I don't follow your logic that because nobody has derailed the conversation by bringing up Al-Awlaki, it somehow indicates everybody's stance on the matter. There are a million different topics of conversation that could tie into this discussion; they can't all be addressed simultaneously.

[Champ Kind]

Way to completely AVOID the question like a puss....they have your kids, you know you have the guy, what do you do?

I'll play.

Whatever it takes.

[OverTQ]

An expert in human behavior will be more successful in far less the time. Look at the interrogation of Saddam Hussein. We got everything we wanted to know from him without ever laying a finger on him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Saddam_Hussein

Also simply google "most successful interrogrator"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

Aside from the conversation of which methond is more effective, I think this is a question of how far are we willing to go to survive? This theme is popping up in tv and movies quite a lot lately.

I personnally think we are going about this all wrong. We should bring in their wives and show them pictures of their husbands in a strip club! In 15 minutes they would give up everything they know.

Edited December 18, 2014 by OverTQ

[pawnman]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30507836

Pakistan Taliban kills 132 school kids and 9 staff.

Even the Afghan Taliban is like, "What the..."

This is who we're dealing with. Tell me again how sad it is that KSM was waterboarded 183 times. Tell me again how that makes us "no better than the terrorists." I appreciate that in the 1st world we can have this discussion without resorting to violence, but this event in Pakistan should serve as a stark reminder of what's at stake when someone in the CIA interrogates a terrorist.

Or how sad it is that we kill people we have in custody, or that we tortured two dozen innocent people. Totally worth it because someone ELSE, who is not the person we've been torturing for a decade, killed some people?

Yeah, you're right, we aren't. That's the point. We should be. And it's been quite a while since we've 'won' one.

It has nothing to do with making our enemies love us.

I know this is going to be taken personally, but I assure you I don't mean it to be inflammatory:

This is exactly the problem. The country collectively acts selfishly when emotion is involved, but then a couple years down the road still tries to stand on the pedestal and say we're better than the rest.

'Whatever it takes to keep my family and I safe' with no regard for the bigger picture and the greater good. Tap the phones, torture the bad guys for intel, hastily invade Iraq. Then two months down the line we see some other entity acting selfishly and get all indignant about it.

Beheading journalists on camera serves a purpose for ISIS, whether you believe it or not. Don't get righteous and bent out of shape over it when it happens, because they're just acting selfishly with no regard for others, same as us if we condone torture when it's convenient. It's just more personally painful when the shoe is on the other foot (and no, I'm not suggesting that if we set the example, ISIS will follow...it's not about that).

The rules are that you accept the fact that living freely comes with a cost...and that the cost is worth paying.

I don't point my fingers when something goes 'boom'. To the contrary, I would accept a 9/11 magnitude attack on a regular basis as the cost of living freely without concern...even if it affected me personally (I'm aware that I'm in the minority here, but I mean what I say...and I'm not saying I wouldn't support doing everything reasonable to prevent it, but it wouldn't involve subverting the Constitution or the ideals we claim to stand for).

[brickhistory]

You know that guy, Gruber? We'll he was right. The American people are stupid.

This is exactly my problem with you and those like you.

You think you are smarter than everyone else and therefore need to think and act for me/them.

That is a sweet gig to acquire.

[Mark1]

This is exactly my problem with you and those like you.

You think you are smarter than everyone else and therefore need to think and act for me/them.

That is a sweet gig to acquire.

Wow. That's about as far off the mark as you could possibly get. It's not really relevant, but I'm as libertarian as you can get. I think the collective should do the absolute minimum of thinking for the individual. I don't give one shit what anybody else does or thinks, and I don't want to tell them how to do it. As long as what they do doesn't infringe upon others' rights, go for it.

It's quite the opposite. You straight up insinuated that because 79% (given the numbers you presented...it's not actually that high) were okay with torture, that their opinions should dictate the U.S.'s actions on behalf of 100%. You advocate thinking for others. And yes, I understand that the U.S. government has to take one action or another, and not everybody is going to be happy with it, but running with the concept of 'majority rules', back to my over-the-top example:

The majority of Americans when asked, 'Do you think Judaism has any merit?', would answer 'no'. So we should deport Jews and outllaw the religion because the majority has spoken? It's about as un-American as you can get. People need to get this 'majority rules' concept out of their head, because it's literally the antithesis of what this country was founded on. Majority opinion plays a significant role in how this country runs, but it does not reign supreme. It is severely restrained by a higher power in the form of the Constitution, as it should be.

I'd love to see pure 'majority rules' form of governance implemented in this country. Vote on everything. Anything with 50.01% support goes. Then you can let me know if you still take offense to my 'the average American is stupid' comment. I can't even imagine all the dumb shit that would be going on, and I think you know it's true. I certainly know that the number of circumstances in which you felt the collective had decided [incorrectly] how to act or think on your behalf would increase by orders of magnitude.

[ClearedHot]

Talk to your SERE folks and they will have dozens of examples of it working in real life.

If you were thrown in jail, flown halfway around the world and held indefinitely with no charge, legal rights and you were tortured wouldn't you be a little bit resentful towards the western world? There are plenty of examples of normal people or criminals being converted to islamic extremism in jail and it is understandable that a government would be cautious about that. If your senator or congressman went to the feds and sought to resettle gitmo detainees in your district do you think they'll be reelected? It's a classic "not in my backyard" example.

What intel did it ignore? Do you have an open or high side source on that? I've seen a lot of the talking heads mention that but with no proof or supporting information.

Open source reporting that they did not bother to interview most of the major players including the lead Air Force Doctor who lead part of the program. The purposely distorted his qualifications and IGNORED that fact that he helped design AF SERE program. He worked in this field for 30+ years and until recently was prohibited from speaking publicly because of a non-disclosure agreement that he actually honored (unlike the partisan hacks who skew everything). In a recent interview he discussed the tactics and the fact that the repeated waterboarding and intense interrogation of KSM was based on intelligence that led investigators to believe AQAM had smuggled a dirty bomb onto U.S. soil and they were very close to using it.

I hear and respect the debate...there is no easy answer when extremists find an asymmetric to challenge all the freedoms we enjoy in this country and we try to balance that against the basic freedoms we given by the Constitution...the major difference in my mind (and a simplistic point of view), they were not Americans so they don't get those protections. Regardless, the debate becomes somewhat jaded when viewed in 2014 without the context of events and public opinion in 2001.