Torture! (Here we go)

[Mark1]

Agreed. I think it's called SERE training. ;)

As to the other part of your reply: perhaps. Immediate action response is dependant on the mobility of the Bad Guys. But, as in the (supposed*) case of UBL, his mobility was restricted and information gathered at a later date may have, and perhaps did, produce actionable intel.

(*Supposed because we've seen no evidence whatsoever of his death. And yes, I do believe that he is dead.)

There are interrogators and there are torturers. They are not, necessarily, the same.

LS

There's a big ######ing difference between volunteering to play a part in a production where you know the guy on the other end has no malice towards you and can't do anything physically damaging to you, and getting rolled up by an enemy that knows his actions will never see the light of day, and is acting on emotions.

There's a big difference between hearing "boots" for 24hrs and hearing it for 24 days. There's a big difference between knowing you'll be done in 24hrs and not knowing if it'll ever end. There's a big difference between having the option to call for a medic and having it all instantly stop, and not.

Don't compare it to SERE.

I think that if you were rolled up by the North Koreans for an indefinite period and they were constrained to only using waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, confining spaces, mild beatings, etc., etc., you wouldn't have quite the rosy outlook that you had on the bus ride out to the SERE camp.

It may not be bamboo shoots under your fingernails and broken bones, but it's a pretty common theme among guys who have been through that stuff that the psychological approaches were the worst.

I have only this to say: Anybody saying "I'm not opposed to doing what had to be done" better not also think, "god damn savages" next time one of our guys shows up in a propaganda video and loses his head or is clearly not being treated well. It was convenient for our enemies to exploit their good fortune of having rolled up one of ours, and it's no different than when the tables were turned and we decided to act similarly.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Mark1

[Homestar]

I think the American people are losing the will to do what is necessary and what the price actually is when it is as close as a You Tube video.

Nailed it.

Now I haven't read through the entire thing but on the surface things like water boarding, sleep deprevation, and cold baths don't fall under toture.

Exactly. When I hear that some methods included yelling, slapping faces, and telling lies I just want to ball my fist up and punch a terrorist, because that kind of stupid stuff isn't torture.

I have only this to say: Anybody saying "I'm not opposed to doing what had to be done" better not also think, "god damn savages" next time one of our guys shows up in a propaganda video and loses his head or is clearly not being treated well. It was convenient for our enemies to exploit their good fortune of having rolled up one of ours, and it's no different than when the tables were turned and we decided to act similarly.

So you're basically saying that waterboarding KSM 183 times is just the same as beheading civilian American journalists on YouTube. Got it. I don't need to see it from "their point of view." They are savages and should die where they sit.

[brickhistory]

Nary a word about the President ordering the killing of two Americans - al Awalki (sp?) and his 16 year old son - but much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the now decade old news of roughing up some goat fcukers who killed 3,000 Americans.

I have no issue that al Awaliki is taking a dirt nap.

But that due process thing seemed to be missing.

Probably just me.

I'm sure some other Pres wouldn't/couldn't order a hit on another American cruising down some deserted highway in, oh, say, New Mexico or the like.

[Lensatic]

Don't compare it to SERE.

I was comparing what Fuzz listed as torture to SERE. BTW, Army SF SERE is different. It's longer and bones may be broken. (I was not SF.)

LS

[Champ Kind]

If you're going to run with jihadists, well, I hope you're wearing a helmet when you get rolled up because life is about to get tough. No sympathy. Waterboard away.

And for those that say, "Oh no, they could do this to Americans"... If you're an AMCIT and get caught aiding these people, then I say you get a couple extra jugs of water because you grew up in the land of the free and should know better.

[Prosuper]

[busdriver]

things like water boarding, sleep deprevation, and cold baths don't fall under toture.

I agree with Mark1, there's a huge difference between getting a limited exposure to these things in SERE and actually having to face them with no end in site. However, I think there's a misunderstanding with what water-boarding really does. From what I've read and watched (there's all sorts of idiots on youtube trying it) it basically makes it feel like you're drowning. That said, having been a lifeguard in high school (great job) no matter how good a swimmer a person is, eventually that feeling trips a natural drowning response similar to a fight or flight type thing. The result is the "classic" drowning person flailing arms, ineffective kicking and head tilted back, eyes rolled back sheer panic look. They'll crawl on top of their rescuer trying to get out of the water.

Water-boarding is more than a mock execution, it's a simulated execution that despite knowing going into it that you won't die the procedure will access a primal level of your brain you can't control to make you experience the level of fear that you are in fact dying.

[hispeed7721]

Water-boarding is more than a mock execution, it's a simulated execution that despite knowing going into it that you won't die the procedure will access a primal level of your brain you can't control to make you experience the level of fear that you are in fact dying.

And?

So we do "mock executions"...and they do real executions.

We "mock execute" people who have actually done something deserving of it. They actually execute innocent civilians.

I'm not seeing the moral issue people keep clamoring on about (not necessarily here)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited December 15, 2014 by hispeed7721

[busdriver]

So we do "mock executions"...and they do real executions.

My point is that mock executions are pretty widely accepted as unacceptable. I have no problem with actual shit heads getting what they deserve, but until they get something that approaches due process who's to say they are actual shit heads? Should we be able to grab a dude off a compound and water-board his ass to gain intel about who his boss talks to at dinner..... when said dude is a cook and is just doing a job to get paid.

It's an extreme example I get it, but at the end of the day either the means are acceptable or they aren't. We claim we're better than them, if we want to hold that claim we need to actually be better.

[Homestar]

We claim we're better than them, if we want to hold that claim we need to actually be better.

We are better than them. Waterboarding is better than beheading. Rectal feeding is better than mass murder on 9/11.

[busdriver]

By the logic you present: We are A OK to tie up our prisoners by their wrists behind their backs and lift them off the ground by that point of contact until their shoulders dis-locate. Because that's better than cutting off their head. What you're saying is that as long as we don't kill them, we can do whatever.

We shouldn't be engaging our suspects in a battle of wills (aka torture) but but fucking them up with a battle of wit.

[Lensatic]

We shouldn't be engaging our suspects in a battle of wills (aka torture) but but ######ing them up with a battle.

Fixed it you you. ;) Heard of any prisoners lately?

LS

[ClearedHot]

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!

[HeloDude]

ClearedHot gives me a thought...

So the government is against torture (the kind that doesn't cause any long term physical harm), but has a massive stockpile of nuclear weopans ready to be launched at a moment's notice...weopans which would kill millions of innocent people. I am we'll aware of the concept of deterrence and mutually assured destruction, but if you're not willing to strike fear into your captive in order to attempt to retrieve valuable information on a potential terrorist attack (ie something on order of another 9-11), then I don't honestly believe our leaders would ever pull the nuke trigger even if we were actually attacked with nukes.

Bottom Line--we're wasting money on all of our nuclear weapons and support if we're against keeping people up with loud music and pouring water on them in an attempt to retrieve information to prevent a large scale attack.

And if water boarding doesn't work, why did they do it? And if it was illegal, why haven't there been any prosecutions?

[pintail21]

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!

And said hypothetical terrorist says he put it in the Staples Center when it's actually in the Rose Bowl, or it really that person wasn't on the terrorist varsity squad and when he realizes the only way to end the pain and suffering is to say anything and he spits out the first location he can belieably speak about, and in either case it sends valuable resources going miles in the wrong direction wasting even more precious time. I'm not sure how familiar you are with fallacies, but here's a wikipedia page for the straw man argument that interestingly enough includes the following line that is oddly prescient "This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

But that straw man example is not the real situation at Gitmo, which is taking someone who may or may not know information that may or may not still be current, accurate and relevant and you intimidate them and inflict pain and suffering until they say what we want to hear. Then we send a team of who knows how many intel types to go chase down the story and see if it checks out, wasting time and money in the process. Do you realize that US citizens who are not under any physical stress resembling torture falsely confess thousands of times a year? 30% of the convicted "criminals" who were exonerated due to DNA testing made a confession, incriminating statement or pled guilty and keep in mind that's with the knowledge that they had the US justice system on their side. So I wonder what the rate is with people who are extraordinarily rendered, tortured and whisked off to black sites and left in a extralegal status indefinitely. It's safe to say that 95% of the people on this site went to SERE and they all saw first hand how telling white lies, half truths and information which only sounded right could save your bacon, give up nothing and waste enemy resources on wild goose chases.

One day we'll realize that we can't beat terrorists by taking one off the battlefield and helping to create two in their place. Sadly the interrogation gurus probably created more terrorists than they locked up.

Edited December 16, 2014 by pintail21

[Lensatic]

It's safe to say that 95% of the people on this site went to SERE and they all saw first hand how telling white lies, half truths and information which only sounded right could save your bacon, give up nothing and waste enemy resources on wild goose chases.

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

[pawnman]

If you're going to run with jihadists, well, I hope you're wearing a helmet when you get rolled up because life is about to get tough. No sympathy. Waterboard away.

And for those that say, "Oh no, they could do this to Americans"... If you're an AMCIT and get caught aiding these people, then I say you get a couple extra jugs of water because you grew up in the land of the free and should know better.

And if you happen to be swept up on accident and tortured anyway, then I guess it's all in the name of security.

The records released say more than two dozen of the people held were completely innocent. No known terrorist ties. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're still holding them. Good thing we're a nation of laws, and not goddamn savages.

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!

So, how many of the detainees we tortured had intel on a nuke in LA?

[jice]

We've had a lot of talk here about whether we are justified in our actions based on our ideas of justice for the individuals involved or the groups they represent. Those who make the eye for an eye argument are justified in their approach; it is natural to want to harm those who have harmed us. We're military members and all believe in violence as a solution. However, are the policy implications here really about justice for these individuals at all?

Should we be asking whether this is helping us achieve our political goals in regions from which these people were taken? It does seem like in extreme cases (the Scalia hypothetical) harsh treatment must be justified if it achieves the desired result. The benefits of not having a mushroom cloud over LA are far outweighed by any possible impact to credibility and perceptions of legitimacy based on the way that information was obtained. However, at some point there must be a point of diminishing returns.

If our aim is to stabilize a population/region/way of thinking and establish both political structures and mindsets favorable to the long-term goals of the United States, does the impact to our ability to project soft power become so counterproductive as to negate any benefit that we may gain in short-term intelligence?

"Hi, we're from (country X); we're here to help, and we haven't been in the news this week for torturing your relatives. Here's a new soccer stadium (or economy for that matter), now here's what we'd like from you" might be more dangerous in the long term than what we are preventing with short-term intelligence gathering.

Let's hope we've got some pretty smart folks making the decisions; I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't have any idea how to determine the exchange rate in these transactions.

[Homestar]

By the logic you present: We are A OK to tie up our prisoners by their wrists behind their backs and lift them off the ground by that point of contact until their shoulders dis-locate. Because that's better than cutting off their head. What you're saying is that as long as we don't kill them, we can do whatever.

We shouldn't be engaging our suspects in a battle of wills (aka torture) but but fucking them up with a battle of wit.

That wasn't my point. My point is that waterboarding a guy doesn't put us on the same level as them. A battle of wit?

Good thing we're a nation of laws, and not goddamn savages.

Far more innocent people have died in errant drone attacks than have been rolled up accidentally because they happened to live next door to a terrorist. There is a cost to war.

[busdriver]

A battle of wit?

Sorry a crappy way to put it I guess. The most successful German interrogator of WW2 was famous for not using any physical coercion. One of his prisoners later commented that he was positive he gave up info but to that day didn't know what. That's what i meant, if they don't realize they're giving up the ghost, the intel is more reliable.

The Scalia argument is interesting; is there a point where our morality as a nation is less important than some critical info?

It also reminds me of the joke: You: hypothetically would you have sex with a stranger for 10million dollars? Her: Yes You: What about 10? Her: What do you think I am? You: We've established that, now we're negotiating.

[ClearedHot]

And if you happen to be swept up on accident and tortured anyway, then I guess it's all in the name of security.

The records released say more than two dozen of the people held were completely innocent. No known terrorist ties. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're still holding them. Good thing we're a nation of laws, and not goddamn savages.

So, how many of the detainees we tortured had intel on a nuke in LA?

Probably none, but we will never know. This discussion was not meant to suggest we actually stopped a nuke attack it was meant to stretch the limits of the argument.

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. Furthermore, it was a reflection of the time period right after 9/11 when we did not know if more attacks were coming and the majority on both sides of the aisle were in favor of doing whatever needed to be done. To suddenly judge one side based on a lack of context and a partisan report is a bit shallow. As has been pointed out above it is odd that folks object to waterboarding and sleep deprivation but are ok with jamming a Hellfire into a car full of people including American citizens.

I thought the more interesting argument was what would you do if you captured the person who kidnapped your kids. I guess all you pacifists would get him some tea and discuss his mommy issues while your kids twist in the wind.

[discus]

Good read here: "no good men amongst the living". It gives you a picture of the Afghan point of view prior to 9/11 to the mid 2000's when people were getting rolled up nightly. Condensed version: Afghan A wants money and goods. Afghan B wants the same. Afghan Bs only advantage is that he speaks English, so he tells the Americans that "A" is a bad guy. Afghan "A" gets rolled up for a trip to Bagrahm or Cuba. Competition eliminated.

A very good book for shifting perspective.

[Herk Driver]

And if you happen to be swept up on accident and tortured anyway, then I guess it's all in the name of security.

The records released say more than two dozen of the people held were completely innocent. No known terrorist ties. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're still holding them. Good thing we're a nation of laws, and not goddamn savages.

So, how many of the detainees we tortured had intel on a nuke in LA?

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.

[pawnman]

Probably none, but we will never know. This discussion was not meant to suggest we actually stopped a nuke attack it was meant to stretch the limits of the argument.

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. Furthermore, it was a reflection of the time period right after 9/11 when we did not know if more attacks were coming and the majority on both sides of the aisle were in favor of doing whatever needed to be done. To suddenly judge one side based on a lack of context and a partisan report is a bit shallow. As has been pointed out above it is odd that folks object to waterboarding and sleep deprivation but are ok with jamming a Hellfire into a car full of people including American citizens.

I thought the more interesting argument was what would you do if you captured the person who kidnapped your kids. I guess all you pacifists would get him some tea and discuss his mommy issues while your kids twist in the wind.

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?

[Vertigo]

And if water boarding doesn't work, why did they do it? And if it was illegal, why haven't there been any prosecutions?

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.