# Sexual Practices at Guantanamo



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 29, 2005)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/guantanamo_sex_vs_faith



I see how this could cause great offense to the Muslim mind, and I fail to see how it could possibly lead to any gathering of information.

That said, I'm contemplating converting to Islam and getting captured.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

Ahh, yes .... we are the good guys!


This makes me so proud to be an American.


Michael


----------



## Bammx2 (Jan 29, 2005)

torture me!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 29, 2005)

Im really confused...

 We cant use Physical Torture. 

 We cant use Psychologial interrigation techniques.

 How exactly are we supposed to get answers, ask them, and when they refuse to answer say "Oh Ok" and move on to the next guy?

 Lemme tell ya... I am no expert at interigation... the list of techniques I know could fill like 1 line in a notebook, and would be considered horrific by most civilized human beings... so I have to ask...

 What _*IS*_ appropriate?


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 29, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> so I have to ask...  What _*IS*_ appropriate?


 Good question....

 - Ceicei


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 29, 2005)

It boggles the mind to think that people believe this technique would actually work.

I am trying to put myself in a similar situation, I don't know, maybe a terrorist in a thong throwing urine on me.  :idunno: (menstrual blood doesn't phase me  )  I would feel incredibly angry and humiliated, but enough to make me give up secret info? I don't think it would. 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

Technopunk ... that is a very good question. You would think that others would be asking the same thing. 

And my answer will, no doubt, be less than satisfying, but perhaps will provide a starting place for further research.

A - The Federal Bureau of Investigations
B - The Central Intelligence Agency
C - The United States Military

Of these three government institutions, which have been attempting to extract intelligence from detainees? Answer - B & C

Prior to September 11, 2001, which of these government institutions were regularly involved in interrogation techniques of criminals? Answer - A

How much experience do 'B' and 'C' have with getting information from unwilling detainees prior to 9/11/2001? Answer - None

How much input did 'B' and 'C' request from 'A' when determining which interrogation techniques are effective? Answer - None.

This is not the time for 'On-The-Job-Training'. Yet that is exactly what is going on. Now, there is no doubt quite a bit of generalization in my comments here. But, it is true that the vast majority of interrogations were handled by the FBI in the past. Further, they have very little to do with the current interrogations.

I'll put Fox Muldar and Danny Scully against Donald Rumsfeld any day.

Mike


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 29, 2005)

Let me see if I got this straight: The prisoner gets to spit on the guard (real phlegm and saliva);

the guard gets to put ink on the prisoner ( nothing at all ) and pretend its blood.

And some of you think the guard is the bad guy. 

Let these people do their jobs. It's difficult enough without a bunch of armchair experts pretending to know "what works" or when enough is enough.
The job is far from glamorous or even safe. The pay is lousy and the prisoners think women are unclean and inferior. Oh yeah, and they'll kill them if they can.
And some he-men want to put the handicap on the girls.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 29, 2005)

> The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is cutting a person off from their God going to help interrogation?

Seems pretty clear to me with Muslims all over would be livid about this - as would Orthodox Jews, I believe, and possibly other groups as well.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 29, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Let me see if I got this straight: The prisoner gets to spit on the guard (real phlegm and saliva);
> 
> the guard gets to put ink on the prisoner ( nothing at all ) and pretend its blood.
> 
> ...


I agree, I think the ends justify the means.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 29, 2005)

1. How is cutting a person off from their God going to help interrogation?

2. Seems pretty clear to me with Muslims all over would be livid about this..as would Othodox Jews
Posted by Feistymouse

Interesting that you would edit out the part about the "detainee" (that would mean terrorist) spitting in the interrogator's face. That doesn't bother you, does it? Why not? Is your dislike for your country so strong that you can't be objective?
1_ How is cutting a person off from their God going to help interrogation?_
How would you know what "helps" interrogation? It's far from scientific and almost anything is worth a try...especially with a religous warrior. It might work, and can't hurt.
2. _Seems pretty clear to me with Muslims all over would be livid about this.._ 
Who cares? Presumably you are referring to those Muslims who are attacking this country or are sympathetic to those who do. The rest will understand. And if they don't? Who cares?
Given what we know about jihad and Muslim justice, a little red ink ought to be welcome.
As for Orthodox Jews, given the long history of brotherly love and mutual concern in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims, I'm sure Israel will be outraged. They are famous, after all, for their sensitivity to Arab customs.


----------



## AnimEdge (Jan 29, 2005)

Intersting on how there current 'tourture' tactics of the Iraqi Terrorests or whatever they call themselfs involve Beheading and all you heard about it on the news is "Nother America/japanese/Whoever was captured and the terrorest say that if we done remove or forces they will behead him on national TV" for about a day then you hear nothing about it just about ever again, you dont hear uprising from there family or from Americans saying about it, but when news comes out that there 'interagating them' with women in miniskirts and thongs (stuff i saw on the girls walking around High School) and smearing 'ink' wail they cut off our heads and whatever else they do to us, wail theres a outcry about how evil we are for making them stay up late or puting a bag on there head or even giving them a evil look, i dunno aboutyou but i woudl rather be in a naked peramid with some short ugly lady pointing at me then to have my head sawed off.


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 29, 2005)

I want to put my two cents in here.  Speaking as someone who has been in the military and been to Afghan and Iraq, about the only person so far on this thread that I agree with is *ghostdog2*. As far as *michaeledward*'s comment about the three agencies, your facts are a little incorrect. The U.S. military has had interrogators for many, many years. I was one, pre- and post Sept 11.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Interesting that you would edit out the part about the "detainee" (*that would mean terrorist*)


I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the person in question was a terrorist?

Has he been charged criminally with terrorist activities?

Or is he a terrorist merely because he is in custody at Guantanamo?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> As far as *michaeledward*'s comment about the three agencies, your facts are a little incorrect. The U.S. military has had interrogators for many, many years. I was one, pre- and post Sept 11.


Please do enlighten us. I certainly stated in my post that it contained many generalities. Share with me, so that I am better informed, what types of interrogations the United States military engages in? How big are the interrogation units? Where are the units stationed? What successful results have the interrogation units had before September 11, 2001? How were you engaged in this service?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 29, 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37340-2004Jun12.html


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

It would seem this second article is justifying the techniques used in Abu Ghraib and not tied to the incident reported at the beginning of this thread. 

Nowhere in this second article does it talk about using simulate menstrual blood to separate a detainee from his or her G_d.
Also, this second report does indicate that actual pain is likely to decrease the reliability of the information extracted via that pain. Further, it states that 'Threats of death were described as 'worth than useless'. 

I guess that would mean actually inflicting death on a detainee doesn't yield good information either, eh?

Mike


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 29, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> It boggles the mind to think that people believe this technique would actually work.
> 
> I am trying to put myself in a similar situation, I don't know, maybe a terrorist in a thong throwing urine on me.  :idunno: (menstrual blood doesn't phase me  )  I would feel incredibly angry and humiliated, but enough to make me give up secret info? I don't think it would.
> 
> ...


 
 it would work on me.  Touch me ladies touch me.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 29, 2005)

> How much experience do 'B' and 'C' have with getting information from unwilling detainees prior to 9/11/2001? Answer - None
> 
> ...
> 
> This is not the time for 'On-The-Job-Training'. Yet that is exactly what is going on. Now, there is no doubt quite a bit of generalization in my comments here. But, it is true that the vast majority of interrogations were handled by the FBI in the past. Further, they have very little to do with the current interrogations.



Another poster stated the military has been doing this for years and you asked for proof...Article had no opinion on the right or wrong I could see. Just some historical data.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Another poster stated the military has been doing this for years and you asked for proof...Article had no opinion on the right or wrong I could see. Just some historical data.


Got it ... (I didn't when I first read your post) ...  Thanks.

I guess that begs the question, how do you think those interrogation techniques from the 60's worked for us then? Were they ongoing? Were they still effective in the 80's and 90's? Did the military adhere to the recommendations of that historical report?

The military used to have horses in the cavalry too.

M


----------



## Tgace (Jan 29, 2005)

The gathering of intelligence from EPW's is OLD...The military has the habit of sticking with what worked in the past untill some new technique proves better. 

I wasnt an Intel. specialist so I cant give you any concrete examples. That last poster said he was so Ill let him answer. 

This guy's Blog has some interesting opinions though...
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=847


----------



## Colin_Linz (Jan 29, 2005)

I feel greatly ashamed of my countries involvement in the Iraq conflict. Our actions appear very hypocritical. We state many values, but then throw them away when circumstances become difficult. These latest allegations sicken me to the core. How many times over the years have we condemned others for their treatment of human rights? Just the fact that anyone would build a detention facility outside their country so as to avoid the legislation of their nation is hypocritical and demonstrates how they really feel about their own legislation and values. I know these actions are fare from widely accepted within the communities of our countries, but this will not change the way future societies will look back and view our actions. To them we will all be just a bunch of right wing fascists.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 29, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Technopunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently what they're doing in Cuba ISN'T at all. Even though they're suspects with 9/11, Iraqi war prisoners and terrorist suspects... all we're doing is aggravating the situation by flaunting and dissing on their beliefs. It'll make the radicals of their faith just get more incensed at US. 
I couldn't even read the full article without being too disgusted to continue. It's sick and pervered and it's a low-grade, uncivilized mentality that is doing this. 
Yes, they're terrorist and they're uncivilized for attacking us and our neighbors... Do WE have to stoop to THEIR level of uncivility? 
I know of torture ... err, interrogation technqiues that don't require HUMILIATING the crap out of the prisoner. There are ways to make someone talk without that or without pain and mutilation or anything else. 
Sodium Barbatol is one drug and Sodium Penathol as well. Sleep depravation, and so forth. It takes time, but hey, they plan on holding those guys for the rest of their natural lives anyway right? 
If they haven't gotten them to talk already ... they're not going to. 
The military shouldn't have to degrade our image as a civilized and advanced nation by resorting to barbaric and perverted techniques. 


 :idunno: Mebbe I'm just talking outta my **** and don't know what's really involved here. All I know is that it sickens me that soldiers of one of the greatest fighting forces in the world are resorting to this type of behavior in the name of peace and national security. 

The real question should not be if it's appropriate but is it worth it?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 29, 2005)

*Let me see if I got this straight: The prisoner gets to spit on the guard (real phlegm and saliva);

the guard gets to put ink on the prisoner ( nothing at all ) and pretend its blood.

And some of you think the guard is the bad guy. * 


I somehow have this incredible and unrealistic vision for America, Ghostdog, where we as a nation don't lower ourselves to the level of our enemies.  

We keep hearing how the tortures at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't as bad as the beheadings we've encountered in Iraq.  Of course they aren't.  But they narrow the gap.  

I'd prefer we hold the moral high ground and quit comparing ourselves with barbarians who have a 12th century view of the world and justice.  We ought not be in a position where we have to say, "but they're worse."

Pick up a copy of _Heart of Darkness_, by Joseph Conrad sometime, and take time to consider the blurring of the line between savagery and civilization.  Or, more quickly, how about the following?

_
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. _ 

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146 


I always thought Nietzsche was peachy.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 29, 2005)

Anyone who is "sickened" by this type of behaviour or thinks it is something to be "ashamed" of needs to stay away from real work, real jobs, and real life. I've seen worse on executive retreats. Fraternity hazing goes way beyond anything I've read about here and if you spit on me, I'll break your jaw.
Permanent students, the under-employed, and those who make their hobbies their jobs probably minimize stress and take no hard choices. Good. But let the men and women who are doing the heavy lifting have a little room, please. However misguided they may seem to you, they are well intentioned, even idealistic, adults at work in a very hard world. Want to trade places?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Anyone who is "sickened" by this type of behaviour or thinks it is something to be "ashamed" of needs to stay away from real work, real jobs, and real life. I've seen worse on executive retreats. Fraternity hazing goes way beyond anything I've read about here and if you spit on me, I'll break your jaw.
> Permanent students, the under-employed, and those who make their hobbies their jobs probably minimize stress and take no hard choices. Good. But let the men and women who are doing the heavy lifting have a little room, please. However misguided they may seem to you, they are well intentioned, even idealistic, adults at work in a very hard world. Want to trade places?


"Do not question the authority!"

"Why don't all you whining liberals move to Canada, anyway!"

"You're all just pissed off because you lost the election!"


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=76&ItemID=7056



> In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 29, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Anyone who is "sickened" by this type of behaviour or thinks it is something to be "ashamed" of needs to stay away from real work, real jobs, and real life. I've seen worse on executive retreats. Fraternity hazing goes way beyond anything I've read about here and if you spit on me, I'll break your jaw.
> Permanent students, the under-employed, and those who make their hobbies their jobs probably minimize stress and take no hard choices. Good. But let the men and women who are doing the heavy lifting have a little room, please. However misguided they may seem to you, they are well intentioned, even idealistic, adults at work in a very hard world. Want to trade places?


If I'm sickened or ashamed by this type of behavior then it means that I hold a higher regard for my fellow human being and their (religious) beliefs (no matter how wrong it may be to me) than those who seek to humiliate just because they're in a position to do so. That they're criminals and murderers and terrorists is one thing and should be punished but should be done so on a plane of conciousness that doesn't degrade one's own sense of values and morals. 
I'm not EVER afraid of hard work or the dirty job, and I don't appreciate the implication that just because I see and object to the methods used by our soldiers to interrogate their prisoners that I'm unable to do such work. I simply will choose *not* to do it. I choose to value life on my own terms and will do what is necessary to the extent of those values.  I do have direct personal experience with just how hard this world can be and how hard-hearted some of the people can be as well. I used to_ be _one of those hard-hearted sons-o'-beeches, you would not *ever* want to get on my bad side back then, trust me. 
But, now, I'm older, wiser (at least I hope I am) and learned that those ways and that line of thinking was just w-r-o-n-g! I haven't gone soft, I've gone decent! 
Some people are just plain bad, some people need to be put to death for the protection of others, some people just need to be dealt with harshly, taking away personal freedom via imprisonment for a long, long time is a damn good way to do it. Taking away one's dignity isn't.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 29, 2005)

_Why don't all you whining liberals move to Canada, anyway_!"

Naw, stick around. We need you guys. Besides, now that we're out of fake menstrual blood, we're gonna break out the Whoopee Cushions. After that, we make 'em wear beanies with windmills on top and after that we put the fake dog doo-doo under their chairs. It's a laugh a minute, just don't tell anybody.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 29, 2005)

What this actually indicates is very disturbed psychosexual ideation on the part of somebody with authority in the United States military, or in civilian authority.

What it does not indicate is, gosh, just a little hazing. It is a form of rape, directed against prisoners who in most cases have been detained without recourse, in violation of all sorts if international treaties, and held in continued violation.

"Heavy lifting," indeed. Let's cut the politically-correct speech: what's meant is, "Don't complain about torturing."

Coupled--and one does mean, "coupled," with what's been going on elsewhere--US troops beating prisoners to death, playing games with guns in their mouths, raping prisoners with sticks, etc. etc. etc., anybody with a grain of sense ought to be a little concerned about the combination of sado-masochism and brutal assault.

What ho, Abner Djiallo.

One just can't wait for troops taught to torture and ordered to torture, who have the President of the United States offering grotesque and immoral justifications for their actions, to get back into civilian life.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Jan 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Anyone who is "sickened" by this type of behaviour or thinks it is something to be "ashamed" of needs to stay away from real work, real jobs, and real life. I've seen worse on executive retreats. Fraternity hazing goes way beyond anything I've read about here and if you spit on me, I'll break your jaw.
> Permanent students, the under-employed, and those who make their hobbies their jobs probably minimize stress and take no hard choices. Good. But let the men and women who are doing the heavy lifting have a little room, please. However misguided they may seem to you, they are well intentioned, even idealistic, adults at work in a very hard world. Want to trade places?


As an ex serviceman of 14 years I still find this sickening. In fact the whole Iraq conflict makes me uneasy. This feeling has nothing to do with the fighting to defend your country, but rather the degradation of human rights. We have the concentration camps, how long until we have the gas chambers up and running.

The methods used are illegal; there can be no argument against this. If you condone this then you have complete disregard for your own laws.

The methods used are not effective intelligence gathering. All you get are what people think you want to hear.

The methods used where well beyond rubbing just a little ink on someone.

If America is to maintain its respect within the international community, and continue to be thought of as a champion of justice and worthy international leader, they need to act decisively against these allegations and demonstrate that they believe in human rights. After all, human rights were one of the main reasons for invading Iraq to begin with.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 30, 2005)

Colin_Linz said:
			
		

> As an ex serviceman of 14 years I still find this sickening. In fact the whole Iraq conflict makes me uneasy. This feeling has nothing to do with the fighting to defend your country, but rather the degradation of human rights. We have the concentration camps, how long until we have the gas chambers up and running.
> 
> The methods used are illegal; there can be no argument against this. If you condone this then you have complete disregard for your own laws.
> 
> ...


What I've been trying to say, you said it better. Much more so from a veteran! Thank you!


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 30, 2005)

Apparently you get weak at the sight of ink. Please don't tell me what you'd do if you ever saw blood.

Get a grip, for goodness sake. You sound like kids on an overnight hike: making up stories to scare each other. " Yeah, yeah, and then there'll be gas chambers, and then, and then,...."

The only American Value you don't support is winning. Oh, and the one about supporting your country, bet you don't get that either.

Stay at home and don't worry. They'll let you know when the scarey part's over.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

"Anyone who is "sickened" by this type of behaviour or thinks it is something to be "ashamed" of needs to stay away from real work, real jobs, and real life. I've seen worse on executive retreats. Fraternity hazing goes way beyond anything I've read about here..."

Well, I could tell you that when I was 17,  I distinctly remember mopping up and scrubbing away a pool of blood that was about 6 feet long, two feet wide and a half-inch deep, then scrubbing down the stretcher that the guy'd (who had Hep B) been on when they had to crack his chest and stitch the ventricular tear he'd gotten during a cardiac catheterization at Newark Beth Israel Hospital; I could tell you about watching them run the bowel on a guy and one of the senior surgeons asking, "SO--you gonna put all them chitlins back now?" or about standing in an elevator as a family got on, with a complete adult human leg from the mid-thigh down triple-bagged under my arm (hard part was, I worried that either the bag would leak, or the knee-joint would flex and the kids' see what it was)--but hell. Why do that? Wouldn't want to trouble your fantasies about liberals.

So instead I'll just ask--which frat and/or business trips were you on, where the boys grabbed guys off the street at gunpoint, put bags over their heads, stuck them in cages, beat them regularly, beat a few to death, ran fake firing squads, sodomized people with sticks, and ****ed each other in the next room over from prisoners being tortured?

You should be reporting these to the cops, you know.

And just incidentally, simply because frats and businessmen on a toot usually don't actually kill anybody, that doesn't mean that they don't reveal the same sort of sick abuses of power and psychosexual twistedness that we see presently on the loose in some parts of our military and, "intelligence," services. And just incidentally, it should bother you at least a little that the excuses you're giving are precisely the same ones that Stalin's torturers and Hitler's torturers gave.

But mainly, it should bother you that your government is now trying to turn rape into a regular, official, well-planned, policy.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 30, 2005)

Actually, this thread was about the use of ink as fake blood in an interrogation effort. All of the window dressing about rape, sodomy and firing squads was a late inning bait and switch to avoid playing a losing hand.

No one condones what you describe. It is not and has never been the official policy of my government. Broad and baseless generalizations, of which one is fond, lead nowhere.

It should bother you that the attacks you make and excuses you give are exactly the same ones always given by those who would rather see their country lose than win.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Actually, this thread was about the use of ink as fake blood in an interrogation effort. All of the window dressing about rape, sodomy and firing squads was a late inning bait and switch to avoid playing a losing hand.


How is the use of a human being's religeous belief system to terrorize them a useful interrogation technique? Can you provide us with a reason to believe that this technique:
a) provides reliable testimony,
b) is legal with regards to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which YOUR GOVERNMENT ratified,
c) is otherwise useful and efficient?

Beyond that, I am having a lot of trouble trying to understand how anyone can justify the abuse of an innocent person in any way. I say innocent because nobody there has been charged or convicted of anything. YOUR GOVERNMENT is holding hostages and abusing them. You are defending it. Good form.


			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> No one condones what you describe. It is not and has never been the official policy of my government. Broad and baseless generalizations, of which one is fond, lead nowhere.





> Gen. Sanchez's command then issued a policy that included the use of stress positions and dogs, along with at least five of seven exceptional techniques approved by Mr. Rumsfeld in the revised Guantanamo policy.


 from this article. 





			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> It should bother you that the attacks you make and excuses you give are exactly the same ones always given by those who would rather see their country lose than win.


Who would rather see your country lose than win? How do you define winning? What would you consider a loss, in this circumstance? Because one uses arguments of a particular nature, how does that reflect upon the ideas contained within them? Are you suggesting that one of our members is a terrorist, or otherwise guilty of treason?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Apparently you get weak at the sight of ink. Please don't tell me what you'd do if you ever saw blood.
> 
> Get a grip, for goodness sake. You sound like kids on an overnight hike: making up stories to scare each other. " Yeah, yeah, and then there'll be gas chambers, and then, and then,...."
> 
> ...


ghostdog, do you realize that you are addressing your ridiculous comments to people who served, who are veterans, who come from military families?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

I too have problems with "some" of the methods and unspecified length of detention issues here...but that said, what do all of you believe are effective techniques for getting necessary information from uncooperative "military prisoners of war"? (the issues of non-combatant detentions are another issue I can agree that there are "issues" with) The "rules" with the military are different from civil law issues, these people are under military jurisdiction. 

Everybody has their opinions on "this wont work" and "that wont work". In your expert opinions, what will work? There seems to be a lot of armchairing going on here. Where are the psychological studies showing better means. Im not talking about beatings, and some of the stuff weve all seen on TV. Im primarily talking about things like sleep dep., feeding schedules, lighting, uncomfortable positioning, etc. That some here would still deem "torture". What methods with proven, time tested results, would be "acceptable" to halt another 9/11? Or identify terrorist cells that are blowing up polling place, police stations, US troops etc???


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2005)

I am certainly not an expert. Yet, this still is a hobsons choice. 

You can not *know* there is another 9/11 that you can prevent by taking any action? 

If you are interrogating for information, ask questions, disrupt schedules, control all sensory input. 

If that doesn't get you where you want, hell, pull their fingernails out, stick a red-hot poker in the eye, castrate him (But don't break any bones, that would violate Attorney General Nominee Gonzales's standards)

But don't confuse those activites with interrogation. And certainly don't think the information you acquire will be useful.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

I think the CIA and other organizations have the "best" (read you dont want to know the details) field experience with this stuff. Do you think they have never considered the issue of inaccurate information? All interrogation stuff Im familiar with demands multiple independent verifications of information. One prisoner says something and you think the military is going to plan operations off of it? I dont think so. Intelligence experts sort through the entirety of intell they have (HUMINT,SIGINT,IMINT) and look for pattern and verification.

Granted the method isnt 100% effective, but what is?

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-ntel.htm
http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/index.cfm
http://security.teleactivities.net/intelligence/espionage/disciplines/humint.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/search/intel_sum.html


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

I posted as I posted because of the repeated claim on these threads that a) none of this stuff ever happened, b) OK, it happened but it wasn't SERIOUS, and c) anyway, even if it happened and it was serious, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs and anyway why are you libs squeaminsh about defending your country, ya punks ya?

Before the next claim that this has nothing to do with official policy, such claimants might do well to take a good hard look at the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International websites. They're easily available and easy to navigate, and they include this:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/21/usint9925.htm

One also recommends seriously considering the psychosexual underpinnings and likely futures of soldiers who are taught and encouraged to carry out these sorts of actions, as well as the wisdom of relying upon the completely-unsubstantiated theoretical claim that torture in all its forms is a regrettable necessity that brings good results.

After all, funnily enough we have no evidence of any necessary information procured by such means. We have excellent, extensive, all-too-solid grounds to fear what happens when groups of military and "security," people are allowed to grab people in violation of international law and treaty, hold them incommunicado for indefinite periods without let or hindrance, and abuse them however they wish, all in the name of, "national security."

Or do we prefer the abstract claims about unproven necessity that use situational ethics to justify breaking all sorts of military regulations, civilian law, and international treaties?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

Do we believe the Military will tell us what useful information they have gained and jeopardize operations? I can agree that maybe some independent government investigations into said practices should be done. I think we are all assuming much when we state we know whats effective, what useful intel has been gathered, etc....The issue of if its "right" even if its useful Ok. Otherwise show your intelligence credentials and enlighten us on effective and moral methods.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

Oh, boy. Did you not have civics classes in junior high--you know, "American Government," and the rest?

See, the way this works (or is supposed to) in this country, everything the military does is subject to civilian oversight. Sometimes, we elect representatives who do the overseeing, especially when there's information that shouldn't just be floating around loose.

But see, in a democracy, what you DON'T do is to let the military and the spies do whatever they wish without any oversight at all. See, among other things, our representatives are supposed to be checking to make sure that what the soldiers and the spies are doing doesn't violate our Constitution, our laws, and our international treaties. See, the idea is that democracies are wiser than autocracies and last longer, because in the long run their frivolous insistence upon scrutiny, acccountability, morality pays off practically.

Oh yeah--and just generally speaking? See, in a democracy, the idea is that the People, yes the People, are collectively wiser than the experts. it's a frustrating and sloppy way to run a government--but as Churchill noted, "Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable--except for all the others."

But idealism aside, the problem you're having is that you have NO, repeat NO evidence whatsover of a case in which torture (at least you're now using the word) yielded such significant results that you can even reasonably argue for its necessity.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

Did you miss the part where I said that I agree that investigations should be done? Do you think the CIA should open its files of ongoing operations/intel/personnel for public scrutiny?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

Well, I see your point. I agree that the Bush government guys who leaked the "intel," about serving CIA agents to Robert Novak should be investigated, tried, and stuck in the slammer.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 30, 2005)

Absolutely.


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 31, 2005)

I think some comments here are getting a little out of control. There is a *BIG* difference in interrogation and torture. *michaeledwards*, *Tgace* showed you with that link what I was talking about, but to further answer your question. There are several types of interrogators in the U.S. military. It depends on what your definition of interrogation is. Like I said earlier, there is a big difference in interrogation and torture. When you mentioned in your earlier post about the FBI, CIA, and U.S. military being interrogators, you need to understand that the FBI conducts different types of interrogations than the CIA and tha military. They interrrogate more for the purpose of solving a crime. The CIA and military interrogate more to gain intel into what "may" occur or to intercept a situation. There is an entire branch in the U.S. military called "Military Intelligence" made up of Intel Officers and Counter Intelligence Agents. Intel gathering is their full time job. There is also another branch in the Army known as the Criminal Investigation Division (CID). They are known as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) in the Navy, and the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in the Air Force. These agencies are made up of Special Agents and conduct felony criminal investigations and "interrogate" people on a daily basis. Members of all these services work consistantly with the FBI, DEA, US Marshal Service, ATF, and every other federal agency in this country, including the CIA. While stateside, these agent's jobs are mirror images of FBI Special Agents, but when deployed to a conflict theater, they can take on more of a CIA role. All branches of the military have had these agencies for many years longer than Sep 11 2001. When I was in the U.S. Army, I was with CID. Maybe this helps clear it up a little.

Respectfully,
Shane


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

So what is your take on "this stuff dosent work" and "They are just going to tell you what you want to hear (and thus zero value)" arguments people have been expressing?


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So what is your take on "this stuff dosent work" and "They are just going to tell you what you want to hear (and thus zero value)" arguments people have been expressing?


Well, as far as inflicting physical pain, that would more than likely cause some one to give you false information. They will just tell you what you want to hear. Some times mental games can cause some one to tell you what you want to hear. You had it right in an earlier post when you stated all information must be double checked. Everyone must realize that people from different parts of the world have different views on what is important to them. You being a police officer yourself have more than likely ran into this. If anyone on this forum has been trained in detecting lies during an interview/interrogation (two completely different things) then you will know what I'm talking about. Different cultures respond to questioning or people of authority differently. One good example of this is here in the US when some one looks away from you when being questioned it is usually taken as a sign of deception, but when talking to some one from an asian culture, they usually look away from the person in an authority position to show respect. The opposite would be true if talking to some one from the middle east area and showing them or them showing you the bottom of their feet. This is a sign of disrespect. I haven't been to Cuba and participated in the interrogations so I do not know what interrogation practices are being used. Kind of long winded, but to try and answer your question, a good interrogator will know the subjects background and WILL be able to get information without being abusive or inhumane. 

I just want to add this,
Contrary to popular belief, interrogators already know the answers to most of what they are asking you. Remember that next time you lie to the police.:wink2:


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

In your opinion....things like lighting manipulation, feeding manipulation, isolation, uncomfortable positioning...torture? or not?


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In your opinion....things like lighting manipulation, feeding manipulation, isolation, uncomfortable positioning...torture? or not?


Well maybe not so much the isolation, or uncomfortable position. I see the others as torture more than isolation or uncomfortable position. Versions of these two are widely used in interrogation. I mean, I'm sure your department doesn't allow a suspect/subject to sit in a recliner while being interviewed. Likewise, I doubt they are allowed to sit next to their buddies and discuss their answer before responding.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 31, 2005)

So is it legal for Them--you may fill in the "THEM," blank as you like--to do this stuff to OUR servicepeople, spies, paramilitaries, advisors, civilian irregulars, etc?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

If it was just things like lighting, sleep dep. etc. alone, Id say it would be better treatment than OUR people have had at the hands of any enemy weve had to date...


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So what is your take on "this stuff dosent work" and "They are just going to tell you what you want to hear (and thus zero value)" arguments people have been expressing?



Ummm.... that its actually backed up by science and available research??

Y'know, one has to wonder what the origin for the "torture really works!!" paradigm is --- considering we have no science, data, or statistics to indicate it does. I have my own suspicions, of course, but I'm sure everyone here is clever enough to figure out what they are.

On a deeper level, though, we can just forget the science, the facts, and the "utilitarianism". I'm just a bit discouraged that people are so readily open to moral compromise. How, its "inhuman", "barbaric", and "evil" when the Bad Guy (or Other or Shadow or whatever term you wish to use) does it to us --- but its just okey-dokey, "justified", "necessary", or even scarily "righteous" when we do it to them.

Of course, there is research concerning "moral compromise under authority", too, if any of you are familiar with the classic Milgram experiment.

Just some gems to think about.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

How would you address the issue of gaining military intelligence from an unwilling subject?


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How would you address the issue of gaining military intelligence from an unwilling subject?



Deception and psychological warfare. Physical violence is crude and ineffective.

Y'know, personally, I think some people may have just seen one too many episodes of _24_ here. A helpful reminder: its fiction.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 31, 2005)

So for you, tgrace, it would be perfectly legal, and moral, provided that, say, Kim Il Sung or whoever decided it was in his country's best interest.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

I would say that if I were captured and knew anything that they wanted,  I would expect them to try and find out what I knew. Note on this thread and on the survey I stated that I think that "non-violent" (read not necesarily "nice" but not beatings, sex abuse etc) means such as lighting, isolation, stress positions (minus the sexual, religious stuff), feeding, time altering would be acceptable and would expect it to happen to me. Thats what our SERE schools teach our military to expect (plus physical abuse). 

I believe that N.Korea has some vastly expanded techniques in their handbook that are policy.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

If your asking how I would "like" to be treated by the enemy. Well id like Single Rooms, trips to the beach and movie nights, but things just dont work out that way. Of course I was just a lowly NCO, besides mundane tactical information I wouldnt have been worth much effort.


----------



## Adept (Jan 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So is it legal for Them--you may fill in the "THEM," blank as you like--to do this stuff to OUR servicepeople, spies, paramilitaries, advisors, civilian irregulars, etc?


 Whats legal got to do with it? Jaywalking is illegal too, you know...

 Acceptable is a better term.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

You folks are the ones who've been arguing that torture is a) not a big deal, b) legal, c) moral in the right circumstances. 

So if we can, why can't They?


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

Sociocentrism, jingoism, and nationalism always make me giggle. Tee hee hee.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 1, 2005)

Regardless of what the other side does, we need to uphold our ethical values and discipline. When it comes to Intel gathering we are signatories of a number of International agreements on human rights and treatment of prisoners. So apart from our own personal feeling we must follow what we have agreed to. After all how can we expect others to uphold their agreements if we wont uphold ours? Splitting hairs defining torture and holding captives indefinitely outside your countries legal jurisdiction can demonstrate to others that you are all talk, but dont believe what you say. That you like to tell other nations what to do, but then disregard these principles and values when it suits you. It reduces your credibility, and adds more tools for terrorist leaders to use against you when recruiting. Is this really helping you win against terrorism?

Every conflict will have rules of engagement. These will change with the circumstance of the conflict. Service personal are required to follow these. By way of an example, during the East Timor conflict one of the rules of engagement was that you were not allowed to shoot at the enemy unless they were on the ground and or shooting at you. This may appear stupid, and you may think why cant I shoot at them when they approach with weapons. There are reasons for these rules, and as a professional Soldier it is your duty to obey them. Once you start to breakdown discipline within the highly charged and emotional environment of a military conflict you can start reducing your chance of success. Discipline is not only a product of the person; it is a product of the training. This is where many problems seem to stem from, there seems to be a lack of properly trained personnel, too many reservists in areas that they have had inadequate training or experience.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

And since our military manuals are based in policy and policy is based on those agreements we should use that as a guide in technique selection IMHO. The stories we are hearing/seeing are outside policy IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

Fm 34-52



> *Approaches*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

As I have stated previously, I have no problem with lighting, sleep, food, positioning manipulation etc....of course there are vast differences between these techniques being "torture" and being subtle. Making a prisoner sit waiting for an hour in a chair with shorter front legs to keep him uncomfortable is vastly different from standing naked on a box with wires on your wrists being told if you step off you will be electrocuted. Altering lighting, sleep and feeding to disorient is vastly different from starving, not giving any rest and blindly lighting a room with flood lamps. To some extent even our local LEO's use these subtle tricks to to gain an edge.

The only "excessive" technique I would "accept" even though its beyond bounds is drugs. In very limited and vital cases.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And since our military manuals are based in policy and policy is based on those agreements we should use that as a guide in technique selection IMHO. The stories we are hearing/seeing are outside policy IMO.


I dont know what your manuals say regarding this issue, but I would expect that you are correct. This is the very reason why people should publicly criticise it. This way it becomes clear that it was not supported by the Government or the people. This may seem like it is taking support from the troops, but rather it is only taking it from those that acted in this manner. The other troops will find greater support from within America and outside. They will be able to feel proud about their efforts rather than guilt by association.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

Colin_Linz said:
			
		

> I dont know what your manuals say regarding this issue, but I would expect that you are correct. This is the very reason why people should publicly criticise it. This way it becomes clear that it was not supported by the Government or the people. This may seem like it is taking support from the troops, but rather it is only taking it from those that acted in this manner. The other troops will find greater support from within America and outside. They will be able to feel proud about their efforts rather than guilt by association.



The problem here is that the actions in question _were_ supported by the American government --- or, at the very least, its executive branch. Or, even more specifically, the Department of Defense within that branch.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

Yup, regrettably. And they started in on laying the intellectual groundwork well before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. Scope out the clown they're trying to put in as Attorney General.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

Supported by the gvt. is different from policy however. If they havent written it down, then they can blame the implementers when the **** hits the fan. No different under anybodies presidential watch IMO. Right? hardly. When it comes down to it the troop is going to be asked "how were you trained?" and "what does your written policy say?"

Question on some LEO interviews: "What do you do when your Chief orders you to do something in violation of Dept. policy?"


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

My answer: Refuse and get fired. Or do it as long as you have a written and signed order from the Chief (as long as its not something thats going to land me in prison).


----------



## Deuce (Feb 2, 2005)

I'm quite surprised at the amount of people who see these interrogation tactics as immoral or wrong. I mean seriously, these techniques are pretty tame compared to other countries methods. So what if you humiliate and belittle these people with sexual tactics. It's not like they were physically abused, beaten to a half dead state or something. 

I really don't think it's anybody's business here to criticize their tactics. So the soldiers stooped to a lower level. Big deal. They did it in order to preserve your freedoms and in hopes of preventing furture terrorist attacks. 

Don't kid yourself. I'm sure that the US military had very strong reasons to detain these people in the first place. At least they're using a non-violent interrogation approach. Obviously someone somewhere thought this tactic would work. Why not give it a shot. I would have a problem with soldiers picking random people off the street and using these interrogation tactics, but they're using them on people who are believed to hold valuable information that could mean the difference between life and death.

This is just my opinion, but I would rather see these interogation techniques being used than seeing death and destruction that coud have been prevented with a thong.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Feb 2, 2005)

I don't think my - or Americans - freedoms are being upheld with interrogation techniques that are questionable - or, as discussed in other threads, would be considered "torture".  If our nation engages in such things, then other nations may feel even more free to torture captured American soldiers. 

Coming from a military family, it incenses me that my loved ones may be put at more risk in the future, because of what we are doing now with our prisoners.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 2, 2005)

Which parts do you find "mild:"

1. Holding people incommunicado, without charge, for several years, in a small cage;

2. beating people to death;

3. sodomizing prisoners with a stick?

Note: It is a violation of international treaty and US law for us to ship prisoners to states in which we expect they will be out-and-out tortured, which we've been doing.

Note: See, what's supposed to be DIFFERENT about this country is that we have these wacky things like the rule of law, the Constitution, etc. See the point of America is that IT'S DIFFERENT.


----------



## Deuce (Feb 2, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Coming from a military family, it incenses me that my loved ones may be put at more risk in the future, because of what we are doing now with our prisoners.


That's a very good point, but I would consider anyone who is detained for interrogation and subject to the tactics in question very fortunate. It can be and has been much worse. 

These camps, wars and interrogations are being implemented in hopes of bettering America and the world. I'm quite sure (at least I hope) that the people involved in using these techniques have looked at every angle including the consequences of their actions and the potential for desired outcomes.


----------



## Deuce (Feb 2, 2005)

sodomy with stick = bad
years in small cage without charge = bad
smearing red ink on face of prisoner = bad
wearing thong and miniskirt = bad
commiting thousands of murders during war = acceptable


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 2, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> sodomy with stick = bad
> years in small cage without charge = bad
> smearing red ink on face of prisoner = bad
> wearing thong and miniskirt = bad
> commiting thousands of murders during war = acceptable



*sigh*   

Why is it that those defending these acts can never actually use sound logical reasoning to do so??

Could be because its illogical in and of itself, I guess.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 2, 2005)

Beyond suggesting that you listen to a few fewer Michael Savage shows, so you're less prone to come up with the bizarre dreams about somebody like me saying that murder's OK, let me only suggest that when the cop comes to YOUR door with the nightstick, a can of PAM (or not) and a big smile, I only hope they he looks just like Andrew Dice Clay.

They don't argue it reasonably, on evidence, because there is no way to argue this sort of stuff reasonably, on evidence.

And as long as we're leaping--it's good to know that if you have a little encounter with another willing adult in a xerox room, that's infamous--but if you kidnap, beat and rape a scared kid in a cellar for no definite reason, that's national security.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I'm quite surprised at the amount of people who see these interrogation tactics as immoral or wrong. I mean seriously, these techniques are pretty tame compared to other countries methods. So what if you humiliate and belittle these people with sexual tactics. It's not like they were physically abused, beaten to a half dead state or something.


 It's not JUST sexual, this is using a persons religious views about something.

 If it was just sexual I don't think anyone would complain much, but it isn't.  It is convincing people that they have violated their own religious laws.  For someone with very strong religious views this means convincing them that they are going to hell.

 Now, perhaps this is WORSE then beating them till they are nearly dead.  Remember, some people are willing to die for their beliefs, it will get them good seats in heaven.  Using a method of interegation which under the prisoners beliefs system condems them for eternity is not something to be proud of.

 "They're defending our country, let them do what they have to"

 Is the US really in that much trouble?  could Iraq really launch any kind of offence that would cripple the country?

 Could the US do it to Iraq?

 Under that theory don't complain about their tactics cause their country IS in big trouble and HAS been destroyed by a foreign power.  

 But to destroy a country and overthrough the gov't because of "immoral dictators" and then proceed to use this sort of tactics IS hypocritical.  

 You can't both wipe out the gov't for its treatment of the people that are against it, and then do the same thing to those that are against you.


----------



## Deuce (Feb 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> It's not JUST sexual, this is using a persons religious views about something.
> 
> If it was just sexual I don't think anyone would complain much, but it isn't. It is convincing people that they have violated their own religious laws. For someone with very strong religious views this means convincing them that they are going to hell.
> 
> ...


I'm sort of looking at this on a smaller scale. It may not be all of America that's at stake, but maybe only the lives of a few American soldiers. If by using these tactics, they manage to stop a car bombing that would kill one American solidier, isn't it worth it? 

Maybe nothing useful comes out of the interrogations, maybe this method dosen't even work. We don't know the full story. If the US had a strong reason to believe that a detainee had information that could save even one American life, and all other standard interrogation tactics failed, wouldn't you consider using this technique if you thought it would help? Or do you believe that maintaining foreign religious beliefs are more important than potentially saving the life of a fellow American?

But again, we don't know the nature of the interrogations. I just think that in extreme situations when all other methods failed, this technique would be acceptable under certain conditions.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 3, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I'm sort of looking at this on a smaller scale. It may not be all of America that's at stake, but maybe only the lives of a few American soldiers. If by using these tactics, they manage to stop a car bombing that would kill one American solidier, isn't it worth it?
> 
> Maybe nothing useful comes out of the interrogations, maybe this method dosen't even work. We don't know the full story. If the US had a strong reason to believe that a detainee had information that could save even one American life, and all other standard interrogation tactics failed, wouldn't you consider using this technique if you thought it would help? Or do you believe that maintaining foreign religious beliefs are more important than potentially saving the life of a fellow American?
> 
> But again, we don't know the nature of the interrogations. I just think that in extreme situations when all other methods failed, this technique would be acceptable under certain conditions.



Two things:

One) No, it is not morally acceptable to stoop to the level of terrorists and sociopaths to stop them. The whole point for doing what we're doing _is_ that we're the moral champions here fighting for freedom, liberty, and apple pies for all. Torturing prisoners of war doesn't accomplish this.

Two) We _do_ know the full story: torture doesn't work as an interrogation method. There have been numerous studies (not to mention past experience with the CIA) that can attest to this. The entire notion of torture being an effective means of interrogation is a pre-formed fantasy.


----------



## Deuce (Feb 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> One) No, it is not morally acceptable to stoop to the level of terrorists and sociopaths to stop them. The whole point for doing what we're doing _is_ that we're the moral champions here fighting for freedom, liberty, and apple pies for all. Torturing prisoners of war doesn't accomplish this.


Is it morally acceptable to let American soldiers die because convincing a man that he has broken his religious values is unethical? 

They're killing, beating, and torturing Americans, and you equate this with wearing a thong and rubbing red ink on someone's face? I wouldn't call this torture. Is yelling at someone in an iterrogation room until he breaks torture? This is a fairly standard technique that has been proven to work, and would be classified as torture under your definition.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Two) We _do_ know the full story: torture doesn't work as an interrogation method. There have been numerous studies (not to mention past experience with the CIA) that can attest to this. The entire notion of torture being an effective means of interrogation is a pre-formed fantasy.


OK, I agree with you that torture dosen't work, but I don't think this interrogation tactic is torture. With all these studies done, don't you think the military would realize that this method is a waste of time if they considered it torture? Someone, somewhere must have thought that it might work. 

I just think that the methods explained in the article are acceptable if they actually work. Where do we draw the line with what's acceptable when American lives are at stake?

Sheldon


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 3, 2005)

We've hashed this out before. It just turns into throwing words around like "torture," "Hitler," "Vietnam," yadda, yadda, yadda...

Save your keystrokes...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 3, 2005)

We know exactly the nature of these..."interrogations." We know who ordered them. We know why.

Sorry that some of us object to torture, murder, and violations of international treaties, international law, the UCMJ, and the Constitution.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Feb 3, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> We've hashed this out before. It just turns into throwing words around like "torture," "Hitler," "Vietnam," yadda, yadda, yadda...
> 
> Save your keystrokes...


I don't think anyone's throwing words around without having some meaning behind it.

If our nation is participating in torture, that is a serious problem.


----------



## Deuce (Feb 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry that some of us object to torture, murder, and violations of international treaties, international law, the UCMJ, and the Constitution.


I object to these things as well, and fail to see the relevance of this statement to the topic at hand. 

How can the implementation of using promiscuous female interrogators fall under any of the categories you listed? It's a more non-violent method than screeming your head off and throwing chairs accross the room in order to get information. Should the "good cop, bad cop" tactic be used? After all, getting yelled and sweared at may hurt the feelings of the prisoner. We can't have that.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

Thats because the people screaming "torture!" loudest cant declare what exactly they consider torture...name what is and isnt acceptable as a technique. Me? Physical abuse: Bad. Things like using lights, isolation etc. to enhance psychological manipulation: OK.

Of course that necessitates making a stand which is in rare supply these days...


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats because the people screaming "torture!" loudest cant declare what exactly they consider torture...name what is and isnt acceptable as a technique. Me? Physical abuse: Bad. Things like using lights, isolation etc. to enhance psychological manipulation: OK.
> 
> Of course that necessitates making a stand which is in rare supply these days...


It is pretty difficult to name techniques, in the end it doesnt matter. What matters are the international agreements we have all signed, and our own laws. From a personal level I wouldnt consider using anything that was outside my moral paradigm, this is probably not answering your question though.

We are having a war on terror. This is what we are trying to win, and this goal should not be forgotten in the mallee. There are going to be casualties, it is normal in war. We accept that when we go into battle some will fall. We do this because it is necessary to complete the goal. What we need to consider is that battle fronts can occur in a number of areas, they are not always on the ground with our troops. We need to consider the hearts and minds of others. Most of these terrorists are recruited because their beliefs and living circumstances have been exploited by people like Osama. If we are going to succeed we need to demonstrate clearly that we are not just talking empty words when we claim to respect other races and their cultures, and that the individuals rights hold value within our societies, and our justice systems are fair and respected by our leaders. If we neglect this part of the war we will never achieve our goals, we may beat them back for a while, but they will regrow. We need to clearly demonstrate that we have a better method of managing people and societies. One that will welcome them and not seek to subvert their beliefs, we need to clearly demonstrate that it not an us or them situation, and that we care about them and respect their individual cultures.

On the issue of the ink. My thoughts would be that it is not torture, but then Im not a devout male Muslim, if I was it would probably effect me much more. What we need to think of is that they did not know it was ink. Movies are only pretend; this doesnt stop people suffering clear adverse physical reactions to what they see. I doubt that the method will have any benefit over other more established methods. What we need to understand is the greater effect that this will have.

There are a great number of Muslims in the world that are not terrorists, why do we feel the need to isolate them and drive them from us. During Vietnam the Americans just threw stuff away. The enemy went through their rubbish and used what they could. They also had spotters during the air raids, they would spot the unexploded ordinance and following the bombing would go out and get the ordinance for their own use. We are doing the exact same thing now, but with people. What are the terrorists best weapon? Do you think the way we treat these prisoners will only effect them, or could there be a cascading effect? We need to be very clear about what our actions communicate. There are many people in the Middle East that dont support these terrorists, it could be a good idea to try and keep their faith in us


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

I just think that if we are going to be throwing around the term "torture" we should all be on the same page of what that means. One persons version seems far different from anothers here. General statements about personal moral paradigms dont clear the haze.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 3, 2005)

Could ya maybe agree that if you a) grab people off the street and hold them incommunicado for years, b) beat them to get information, c) sodomize them with a stick to get information, d) beat some of them to death to get information, e) do things like strap them down, put a towel over their head and soak the towel with water to get information, f) run fake firing squads to get information--why then, it's probably, you know, TORTURE?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

The international agreements leave a lot of room on the issue anyways...show any pact that names specific interrogation techniques. Ill bet most of them are couched in general terminology. Look at the US field manual I posted. Theres a lot of "wiggle room". Granted the abuses at Abu Graib were way beyond those parameters. Im just wondering if people are expecting military intel. guys to just be asking POWs "please tell me what you know...no?...Ok then ask for me if you change your mind...next!"

At what point does psychological manipulation become torture? Torure to me involves physical injury, substantial pain (not just light discomfort), anything that permanentaly harms somebodies physical/psychological well being.


----------



## shane23ss (Feb 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The international agreements leave a lot of room on the issue anyways...show any pact that names specific interrogation techniques. Ill bet most of them are couched in general terminology. Look at the US field manual I posted. Theres a lot of "wiggle room". Granted the abuses at Abu Graib were way beyond those parameters. Im just wondering if people are expecting military intel. guys to just be asking POWs "please tell me what you know...no?...Ok then ask for me if you change your mind...next!"
> 
> At what point does psychological manipulation become torture? Torure to me involves physical injury, substantial pain (not just light discomfort), anything that permanentaly harms somebodies physical/psychological well being.


I would have to agree with this point.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

Yes Robert I would say thats torture and wrong....

What about the psychological manipulation stuff Ive been mentioning? Is that torture?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 3, 2005)

Quite possibly. Probably, though, some of it falls into the area of what I'd call, "coercion--" it may be wrong, it may violate law and treaty, but it may not be torture.

A question I asked early on this thread came down to this: do we really want soldiers, and later civilians, who are accustomed to the sort of sexual manipulation described? especially when they're closely associated with soldiers, and units, that are cayying out obvious torture?


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 3, 2005)

Policy can be interoperated in ways that defy their intent. What should be understood is that this interpretation communicates something about your values and how we really think. This is why we should remain true to our stated beliefs and values.

The issue of the ink as torture on its own is a red herring. We should be thinking how does this effect the war. Clearly it erodes the support for the war at home and can provide the terrorists with greater ammunition to use against us, while providing little use.

My personal thoughts regarding using ink to simulate menstrual blood, to put on detainees is one of disgust. It is not something I would like to think I could do. I believe that the same results could be obtained with normal interrogation techniques. I respect peoples religious beliefs even though I have non myself. I dont know if it is torture or not, just that I dont like it, and on a practical level think it is counter productive to what we need to do to win this war on terror.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 3, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Is it morally acceptable to let American soldiers die because convincing a man that he has broken his religious values is unethical?


 Is it morally acceptable to believe that American lives are more valuable then people of other countries?

 What is the ratio?  How many non-american lives are worth one American life?


----------



## Deuce (Feb 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Is it morally acceptable to believe that American lives are more valuable then people of other countries?
> 
> What is the ratio? How many non-american lives are worth one American life?


So you would let an American die instead of allowing religious beliefs being used in an interrogation?


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 3, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> So you would let an American die instead of allowing religious beliefs being used in an interrogation?


It is just as true to say that by showing disdain for their beliefs you are causing more American soldiers to die. Given the choice I would follow my values.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/May/17-485967.html

US dept. of state on military interrogation...worth the read if you want to know the stated policy on this issue.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 3, 2005)

I have no question that you're a lot safer, these days, with the UCMJ and with most all of the military than you are with with Bush's cowboys.

I also recommend reading this report from Human Rights Watch--note in particular that we have members of our government unilaterally announcing that certain people have no rights whatsoever.

http://hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

A problem I have with this discussion topic is the issue of POW's in the "War on Terrorism". Traditionally, POW's were held till the cessation of hostilities and then repatriated to their homelands. Where that point is in this "War" is uncertain. Where/when do we release these POW's?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 3, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> So you would let an American die instead of allowing religious beliefs being used in an interrogation?


This is illogical on a couple of levels. It presumes that:

-Using psychological (religious) manipulation is necessary to extract information, of which I am skeptical,
-American lives will certainly be lost without this information, of which I believe no certainty can be held,
-The number of American lives saved with the information gained will be greater than the number lost in potential "enemy backlash" (which, of course, is impossible to quantify).

I see this (specific use of manipulation) as a severe form of psychological abuse. The religious beliefs of human beings are quite often the most sacred and foundationally important aspect of their psychological framework. To make someone believe that they are in fact unclean in the eyes of their God is to undo all the cleansing that they have ever done in their lives. The intent is to completely disrupt their psychological stability. To me, this is atrocious. But, let's put it into context. The interrogators aren't doing this to coerce, they're doing it to break the mind, and thus the will of their suspect. Now, imagine that this person has done nothing wrong, or otherwise knows nothing of use. Recall that these people are being held without charge or conviction. Why should he have had to endure this? This is punitive at its root. This is revenge, and in some circumstances, misdirected. That is an unsettling thought.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 3, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> So you would let an American die instead of allowing religious beliefs being used in an interrogation?


 Well, under that logic aren't they justified in doing a lot worse since they're in a lot bigger danger?

 Second:  Under a different belief system lets do a comparisson... without biasing based on who is on who's side...

 1 - Dieing for what you believe in and being rewarded for eternity for it.

 2 - Being "corupted" by captors by force and suffering for eternity for it.

 Who is worse off?

 You can't take the moral high ground without considering the beliefs of others.  Otherwise ANYONE can take the moral high ground and do whatever they feel is right, including Hitler (he's gotten a lot of "he will be brought up" and "this will lead to him" so why not )  He probably felt he was doing the "right" thing, and under his beliefs he was.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A problem I have with this discussion topic is the issue of POW's in the "War on Terrorism". Traditionally, POW's were held till the cessation of hostilities and then repatriated to their homelands. Where that point is in this "War" is uncertain. Where/when do we release these POW's?


The last I heard Bush said the war in Iraq was over. I will admit though that it still suspiciously looks like war over there. There is a big problem with just how guilty a number of these people are. This combined with a lack of legal advice and a lack of any fair hearings make me very concerned that many could have been just in a bad place at a bad time. Habib, the Australian just released after 3 years in captivity had never been charged with anything. He was illegally moved from Pakistan, and was tortured. All of this with no legal representation until just recently, and no contact with his family. He thought they had all died, because the interrogators showed him pictures of his family and told him it was unfortunate that they had to kill them.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 4, 2005)

Colin_Linz said:
			
		

> There is a big problem with just how guilty a number of these people are.


 On both sides probably, War criminals loose, heros win.  Until the war is over its up in the air as to who is what.

 A lot of people might consider GW Bush a war criminal, after all he invaded a coountry based on non-existant weapons of mass destruction....


----------



## Deuce (Feb 4, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This is illogical on a couple of levels. It presumes that:
> 
> -Using psychological (religious) manipulation is necessary to extract information, of which I am skeptical,
> -American lives will certainly be lost without this information, of which I believe no certainty can be held,
> -The number of American lives saved with the information gained will be greater than the number lost in potential "enemy backlash" (which, of course, is impossible to quantify).


This is where you're missing my point. I agree that the odds of all the above statements applying to the same situation at the same time is low. In fact, I have serious doubts that this interrogation tactic is even remotely useful at gaining intel. But that's not the point either. My question revolves around the hypothetical situation listed above, and what should be considered acceptable in that worse case scenario. Using this method would go against my values and respect of other cultures also, but in extreme situations as a last resort, the POW would be lucky if this is as bad as it gets. I'm sure there are much worse things going on more often then we would like to believe.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Now, imagine that this person has done nothing wrong, or otherwise knows nothing of use. Recall that these people are being held without charge or conviction. Why should he have had to endure this? This is punitive at its root. This is revenge, and in some circumstances, misdirected. That is an unsettling thought.


I agree with you. This interrogation tactic should not be a standard method of questioning for every POW. I'm strongly against that. But if the military has a strong suspision that this POW knows something very important and all other attempts of gaining information have failed, I would see this as a last resort and act of extreme desperation (assuming that it actually works, and is not used for the sole purpose of degradation and humiliation). But then again, I can totally see this being abused and getting out of control quite often.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We keep hearing how the tortures at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't as bad as the beheadings we've encountered in Iraq.  Of course they aren't.  But they narrow the gap...



I don't think the gap is at all narrowed in the minds of the insurgents.

One has got to ask themselves, how could someone hate so much that they would saw the head off an innocent man or women on camera and then parade it on the internet?

Would an errant bomb that blew the arms and legs off one child and killed the remainder of one's family be enough?  

Personally, if that happened to me, I don't know what I would be capable of.  I would be so filled with rage that reason would cease to have any meaning.

Taking this into account, I can see the beheadings as a tit for a tat....and then, if one throws the desecration of a person's personal religious beliefs into the mix, the physical, emotional, and now spiritual insults are piling.

In the end, pain is pain, death is death.  No amount of rationalization on the part of the people in our country can change this fact...nor can it change the minds of those who are actually experiencing the pain and death of their husbands, wives, children, ect...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Everybody has their opinions on "this wont work" and "that wont work".



How about peace?  How about dropping food and medicine instead of bombs?  What is there to hate about that?

How about learning as a society to live within our means...as in stopping the rape and pillaging of the third world to make a few powerful rich white men even richer and more powerful?

How about we let the local people benefit from their own natural resources and learn to live within the means of their homes?

Do we really have a right to "reform Islam by force?"

Is the "reformation of Islam by force," really the goal?

Hell no it isn't.  This is about enforcing a standard of living for one people at the expense of another.  Watch closely these new _democracies_, there are conformations that fit our _national interest_ and those that do not.  Can you guess which ones will be _chosen _ by the people?  Is that any different then what happens in our country?

In the end, I don't think anything we do will work if we do not attempt to look inward and see our part in creating this mess.  We have been forcing people to do our bidding for a long time and we have cultivated the largest military force on the planet to do so.  Now we contemplate torture in order to continue this practice...

None of it is okay.  Absolutely none of it.  

EVER.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

How about we invest in windmills so we don't have to contemplate torture?

upnorthkyosa

PS - if you disagree with something I type, how about having the courage to do it publically rather then sniping rep points... :idunno:


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How about peace? How about dropping food and medicine instead of bombs? What is there to hate about that?
> 
> How about learning as a society to live within our means...as in stopping the rape and pillaging of the third world to make a few powerful rich white men even richer and more powerful?
> 
> ...


And, since we are there, leaving these people now because it is 'better' not to be there is 'better?'

I agree, peace would be a good thing. I agree that living within our means would be a good thing...but these are abstracts that have nothing to do with what is in front of us now. They aren't solutions or alternatives. THey are 'things that people say' but have a heck of a time drawing up plans that show how we get there.

How do you suggest information is obtained from these people? If we do nothing to extract information and more and more soldiers die because of something we could have found out, is that 'better?'

I can't believe all this talk about 'peace above all' from a TKDer. Because the Koreans have always been the model of peace, love and decent treatment of soldiers/pows and such.  As it stands, S.Korea is 'happier' as a free enterprise nation than N.Korea that can't even keep its citizens in basic utilities on a daily basis....

Honestly, your art is a paramilitary structure that is a variation on a military based art. Don't you find that a little ironic?

Pounding the sand with "THe world should be a better place!" is not going to do anything productive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And, since we are there, leaving these people now because it is 'better' not to be there is 'better?'



In the post directly previous, I made the point that torture is NOT going to make the situation better.  In fact, violence in general, will probably backfire...as it usually does.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I agree, peace would be a good thing. I agree that living within our means would be a good thing...but these are abstracts that have nothing to do with what is in front of us now.  They aren't solutions or alternatives.  THey are 'things that people say' but have a heck of a time drawing up plans that show how we get there.



This summer, I worked with the man who helped create one of the Titan probes.  He quit that job and took a university position in order to develop alternative energy technology.  War in the middle east is not about democracy, it is about energy resources...the plans and technology are all in place...allocating a tenth of the military budget to developing this stuff would eradicate our dependence of foriegn oil.  

Perhaps this would have been a more constructive response to 911?  Could we expect anything different then what we have from the current administration?

People in the administration have repeatedly written that national energy resources are stabilized by a "peaceful" region (Peaceful is not free by the way).  The bottom line is that we are there to secure a resource...

In the long run, you and I and the normal jane/joe will never see a return from this investment.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> How do you suggest information is obtained from these people? If we do nothing to extract information and more and more soldiers die because of something we could have found out, is that 'better?'



Sure, we can refocus on the topic at hand.  I only wanted to briefly share a broader perspective...which is "why discuss ways to _humanely _ torture  people in the middle east when we really don't need to be there if the first place."



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I can't believe all this talk about 'peace above all' from a TKDer. Honestly, your art is a paramilitary structure that is a variation on a military based art. Don't you find that a little ironic?



If I didn't think that violence had a use from time to time, I wouldn't have dedicated so much of my life to studying it.  In my art, we believe in self defense and we also believe in doing everything we can to avoid conflict.  Can you honestly say that in this case, our country "went did everything in its power" to avoid conflict?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Pounding the sand with "THe world should be a better place!" is not going to do anything productive.



Perhaps, perhaps not.  We are tangled in this mess right now.  The good thing is that the Iraqis and the Afghanis have had elections.  In my opinion, the best thing we can do now is get the hell out and focus on cutting our dependence of foriegn oil.  Then we no longer have to contemplate torture...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How about we invest in windmills so we don't have to contemplate torture?





			
				Anonymous comment in Rep Points said:
			
		

> whynotboth



This question is better asked in public.  Why use an anonymous system of personal feedback to merely disagree?  Why Not Both Windmills and Torture?  There, was that so bad...

Here is a couple of counter questions...Would we have a reason to torture anyone if we had no real incentive to be where we are?

Do the terrorists "just hate us" or are they unhappy with some rather specific things?

In the end, ANY torture is not going to make this situation any better.  The War on Terror is really just a war of ideas and use of torture is not helping us win any _hearts and minds_...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 4, 2005)

Well since the military IS there and unless you are recommending just pulling out and leaving them to their own devices, military necessities like intelligence gathering ARE necessary, this issue is an important one...unless you want to go tilting at windmills.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well since the military IS there and unless you are recommending just pulling out and leaving them to their own devices, military necessities like intelligence gathering ARE necessary, this issue is an important one...unless you want to go tilting at windmills.



Perhaps I should quote myself...



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the end, ANY torture is not going to make this situation any better. The War on Terror is really just a war of ideas and use of torture is not helping us win any hearts and minds...



and then there is...



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Perhaps, perhaps not. We are tangled in this mess right now. The good thing is that the Iraqis and the Afghanis have had elections. In my opinion, the best thing we can do now is get the hell out and focus on cutting our dependence of foriegn oil. Then we no longer have to contemplate torture...




What are we _really _ trying to accomplish over there?  Is it worth torture?  Why not build windmills?  They are certainly better then dog attacks or sodomizing people with broomsticks...

When our country gets to the point where we need to contemplate torture in order to further our goals, then we have made a mistake or two along the way.  In my opinion, torture is simply unacceptable and we should try to avoid any path that would necessitate something so nasty becoming national policy.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Feb 4, 2005)

Well if you read through all the posts (the one by the US dept of State is good), you will see that beyond the obviously wrong methods used at Abu Graib, we are trying to get to the base of intelligence gathering methods as a whole and discuss what is acceptable and what isnt...


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 4, 2005)

Another question might be "Is offending the religious beliefs of a good chunk of the world the way to make them less mad at you?"

 And isn't that the goal in this "War on terror"?  To get it so that no one is going to try and do more damage inside the States?

 And the method is "Disrespect their beliefs, blow them up and take over their gov't."  Wouldn't showing a little respect go a lot farther?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Another question might be "Is offending the religious beliefs of a good chunk of the world the way to make them less mad at you?"
> 
> And isn't that the goal in this "War on terror"?  To get it so that no one is going to try and do more damage inside the States?
> 
> And the method is "Disrespect their beliefs, blow them up and take over their gov't."  Wouldn't showing a little respect go a lot farther?



 :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well if you read through all the posts (the one by the US dept of State is good), you will see that beyond the obviously wrong methods used at Abu Graib, we are trying to get to the base of intelligence gathering methods as a whole and discuss what is acceptable and what isnt...



I did read through the posts.  My thoughts on this are broader, but not totally divergent.  By all means, discuss what is _good _ torture and _bad _ torture.  When I say that _ANY _ torture is unacceptable, THAT echoes the thoughts of many others on this thread.  Taking this sentiment further and asking how we got to the point where we need to _contemplate _ torture is where I am at in this discussion.  Further, I have suggested a possibility that might allow our country to _avoid _ torturing anyone...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 4, 2005)

If making a POW stand at attention for 30min to an hour is torture (stress positioning) if a week to a month on 3 hrs. of sleep a day is torture, then we torture our own troops regularly. 

If you take out the obvious (i.e. beatings, sex abuse, plain obvious torture..) and examine some of the psychological manipulation techniques when is it torture?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If making a POW stand at attention for 30min to an hour is torture (stress positioning) if a week to a month on 3 hrs. of sleep a day is torture, then we torture our own troops regularly.



The "accepted" techniques aren't working...therefore the torture escalates.  The original article described that very thing...this escalation to the "innappropriate".  The Bush Administration wants wiggle room regarding the definition of torture in order to hide (or at least overlook) "escalations".



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If you take out the obvious (i.e. beatings, sex abuse, plain obvious torture..) and examine some of the psychological manipulation techniques when is it torture?



Torture can be different for many people.  I don't think you will get a firm definition.  My question is this what happens when the "soft" torture fails?  What guarentee is their that it will not escalate?  

Far better to build windmills...


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 4, 2005)

From a personnel perspective I dont believe we should have ever went to Iraq. They had nothing to do with the war on terror, and we have only succeeded in tying up resources, and causing more people around the world to question our motives. Sure Saddam was a terrible leader who caused great pain and suffering to many of his people, just like a number of other leaders around the globe. There were however some positives to his rule. He allowed freedom of religion, freedom of dress, women were allowed to have careers, women were allowed to drive, women were allowed an education, a public health system and a public education system. He was also a stable power base. Now that he is gone every mad religious leader who wants control is trying to gain it. The methods used are the ones that they have experienced success with for so many years, violence. This whole campaign has been ill conceived and poorly planed. It has also clearly demonstrated the vagaries of Intel gathering


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 4, 2005)

The methods used to fight by these people should be viewed and balanced with an understanding of how there lives differ from ours. Many of them live in harsh conditions, they are used to doing the dirty work in their lives. Many of them still butcher their own food. They have little resources other than themselves to fight with. They have no smart bombs, Air Force, or vast funds to support many highly trained soldiers. When people feel desperate enough they use what is available to them. The fact that they have suicide bombers doesnt mean they lack consideration for their lives, no one on the planet willingly kills themselves unless they have come to believe it is the only way to resolve a problem. If we are ever to win this war on terror we must start thinking why do they feel this way, and look at what we have done that may have helped create this feeling.

You may think what can I do about this? You vote, you decide who will get power. We need to do this with greater thought to how they act. They will develop policies that will get them elected. They need to be clearly guided in what you want. We need to have a greater understanding of how or actions effect those in other nations. We need to understand the predatory business practices that some international companies use to keep developing nations from developing, and clearly signal to our leaders that this should change. It wasnt mindless hate that guided the terrorist into the twin towers, but the thought of defending their culture and counties from Americas obsession with controlling the Middle East. Please dont take this to mean I support this action, I dont. But it is important to try and understand the true causes of these things, wether we like the results or not. Most of you guys study a form of Budo, have you ever been taught the meaning of this? It may be good to examine its meaning and how this effects you at this time.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "accepted" techniques aren't working...therefore the torture escalates. The original article described that very thing...this escalation to the "innappropriate". The Bush Administration wants wiggle room regarding the definition of torture in order to hide (or at least overlook) "escalations".
> 
> Torture can be different for many people. I don't think you will get a firm definition. My question is this what happens when the "soft" torture fails? What guarentee is their that it will not escalate?


Well the proper handling, as stated in the state dept. article, was an authorization process through the chain of command when specific techniques were to be used on specific subjects. The "different for different people" answer dosent work in the real world, justice is different for different people too but we are all subject to the same system. If techniques are "accepted" then they are used until policy changes. The torture cases we all object to were obviously outside stated policy. The question should be where did the system break down and what are we doing now to fix it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well the proper handling, as stated in the state dept. article, was an authorization process through the chain of command when specific techniques were to be used on specific subjects.



Litmus test...did the process provide a bulwark against abuse?  No.  In fact, torture has been describe as "widespread" by numerous international agencies.  Against a disciplined soldier, the techniques described as "appropriate" are probably not going to be effective.  So, what happens next?  

Is the need for intelligence any less?  How easy is it to push the boundaries with standards that admittedly have "wiggle room"?



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The "different for different people" answer dosent work in the real world, justice is different for different people too but we are all subject to the same system. If techniques are "accepted" then they are used until policy changes. The torture cases we all object to were obviously outside stated policy.



I'm not sure we can come to a concrete definition of torture.  You have your view, I have mine.  It is entirely possible that these two POVs cannot be consolidated and consensus may not be possible.  I don't think it gets any more "real world" then that.

Personally, I think the term "torture" should be vague.  I have no problem with widening the scope of things that fall under the umbrella.  Why?  Because I believe that it provides more protection for humans rights.  However, idealistic, as it may be, my approach may not be the best approach. The Bush administration wants to do the same...for different reasons though.  By keeping the term vague, less can fall underneath it...So I could be way off base.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The question should be where did the system break down and what are we doing now to fix it.



I would say that the system broke down when we went into Iraq like we did.  I would say that the system broke down when we need to contemplate torture in order to achieve our goals.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Colin_Linz said:
			
		

> Most of you guys study a form of Budo, have you ever been taught the meaning of this? It may be good to examine its meaning and how this effects you at this time.



 :asian:


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 4, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.Perhaps this would have been a more constructive response to 911?
> 
> 2.In the long run, you and I and the normal jane/joe will never see a return from this investment.
> 
> 3. In my opinion, the best thing we can do now is get the hell out and focus on cutting our dependence of foriegn oil.


1. Don't attack Afghanistan? Taliban continue to torture and kill their own people, especially women and those who don't abide by extreme Muslim fundamentalism. Al Queda continues to train terrorists with state support. John Walker Lindh continues to train for potential use as terrorist tool against his own country. Pat Tillman and many other US soldiers still alive. 

Don't attack Iraq? 1400+ US military still alive. Saddam Hussein still in power. His two sons still alive and torturing folk for the fun of it. No Iraqi election. 
Still have support and respect (for what its worth) of France and other "world powers."

What about the unknowns? How many more people die in further terrorist attacks that would have been foiled had we taken the path of war? Who would have been elected president based on his proven military skills and leadership and wouldn't have "just sat by and let America get attacked again.?"

2. Never say never. Maybe our gas prices will be lower. Maybe my hometown won't get blown up by a terrorist attack. No telling what will or won't affect everyday jane/joe cause the other path wasn't taken.

3. Those are both great ideas.  
Peace,
Melissa


----------



## shane23ss (Feb 4, 2005)

Colin_Linz said:
			
		

> From a personnel perspective I dont believe we should have ever went to Iraq. They had nothing to do with the war on terror, and we have only succeeded in tying up resources, and causing more people around the world to question our motives. Sure Saddam was a terrible leader who caused great pain and suffering to many of his people, just like a number of other leaders around the globe.


Speaking as a prior soldier, I must agree here. Like I have said on this forum in the past, the general opinion of the US military at the time was Afghan was a just cause. Most soldiers believed in why we were there. Iraq on the other hand caused a little different reaction. Most soldiers, at the time, believed it was a "revenge" mission and didn't really agree with the action. I say "at the time" because now is different. At this point in time, many soldiers (including myself), have had close friends "fallen" on the sands of Iraq. This has changed many soldier's attitude on being there. Basically, some have changed to have their own "revenge" reasons. Some of you may say this is the wrong answer or that doesn't make it right. You are probably correct, but please, please don't put yourself in the shoes of some one who has been there unless you have yourself. Trust me, you can't "know where they are coming from" or "understand what I'm saying".


----------



## Colin_Linz (Feb 4, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> Speaking as a prior soldier, I must agree here. Like I have said on this forum in the past, the general opinion of the US military at the time was Afghan was a just cause. Most soldiers believed in why we were there. Iraq on the other hand caused a little different reaction. Most soldiers, at the time, believed it was a "revenge" mission and didn't really agree with the action. I say "at the time" because now is different. At this point in time, many soldiers (including myself), have had close friends "fallen" on the sands of Iraq. This has changed many soldier's attitude on being there. Basically, some have changed to have their own "revenge" reasons. Some of you may say this is the wrong answer or that doesn't make it right. You are probably correct, but please, please don't put yourself in the shoes of some one who has been there unless you have yourself. Trust me, you can't "know where they are coming from" or "understand what I'm saying".


It is certainly true that now we have started this mess we cannot just walk away. To do so would leave many unhealed wounds, and let the population fall prey to the various fundamentalists and power hungry people of the region. We have destroyed all their infrastructure and systems of governance. But I wouldnt expect any rounds of applause from them if we stay. Sure Saddam is no longer there, but we have managed to kill more people there than he ever did. Sure they have just had an election, but they had little input into who they could vote for, we decided this. They all still remember vividly what our priorities were when we went there. Protecting and controlling the oil fields, dont worry about the people.


Just as our Soldiers views are changing because of what has happened over there to friends and comrades, so too are those of the Iraqi people. We have moved from a friend offering freedom of choice, to just another power trying to force their will onto them and control what is theirs. This action is going to haunt us for many decades.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 4, 2005)

For good or bad....this has been going on as long as there has been war. We need to try, as a civilized society, to reconcile military necessity (intel. is key to any military operations) with our societies values. Just asking a POW "please" will lenghten war, result in more dead.....however "torture" (beatings, sex abuse etc.) is wrong by our values and of limited practical value. But this is the "real world" war is ugly...how do you wage it "nicely"? Theres necessity and theres limits....apple pie and sunshine isnt in the future IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> 1. Don't attack Afghanistan? Taliban continue to torture and kill their own people, especially women and those who don't abide by extreme Muslim fundamentalism. Al Queda continues to train terrorists with state support. John Walker Lindh continues to train for potential use as terrorist tool against his own country. Pat Tillman and many other US soldiers still alive.



After Al-Qaeda attacked us, taking the fight to them made perfect sense.  Self-defense right?  The entire world agreed and was behind us.  

Other nations began to look askance as time went on...A lot more has been tacked on to "the mission" that we haven't been told though.  For instance, now our soldiers are building military bases along a line in Afghanistan that directly corresponds to the route Unocal, a US oil company, had planned a pipeline.  

Word came out that our ambassadors told the Taliban to "accept our carpet of gold (the pipeline) or accept our carpet of bombs."  At the very same time, we told the Indian government that we would, "have troops on the ground before the snow flies."  

This is all before 911 mind you.  



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Don't attack Iraq? 1400+ US military still alive. Saddam Hussein still in power. His two sons still alive and torturing folk for the fun of it. No Iraqi election.



There were better and more truthful and perhaps peaceful ways of accomplishing this.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Still have support and respect (for what its worth) of France and other "world powers."



Why have our allies suddenly turned against us?  Perhaps they know about something in which most Americans are totally in the dark.

Iraq is part of PNAC and if you were to look at a map, you could draw a line and connect the dots of American troops.  This line passes right through Iran...which also happens to have a humongous primitive coastline on the Persian Gulf.  Iran is surrounded.  Very suddenly we could have troops over a rather large portion of the worlds oil reserves across three countries.  Dr. Rice isn't fooling anyone.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> What about the unknowns? How many more people die in further terrorist attacks that would have been foiled had we taken the path of war? Who would have been elected president based on his proven military skills and leadership and wouldn't have "just sat by and let America get attacked again.?"



Melissa, devout muslims, not just the terrorists would like us to understand a few things.  First of all, the presence of troops in their holy land is an insult.  Can you imagine if you had to watch someone take the cross rub it in feces day in and day out?  This is how they feel, are we wrong to tell them they shouldn't feel this way, or are we mature enough to realize when we've insulted someone and work to correct it?

Another thing they are trying to tell us is to stop supporting the House of Saud.  These guys make SHussein look pretty normal.  They execute people in the streets.  They preach a wacko sect of islam that says its legal to kill you wife and daughters if they disobay you.  And, perhaps worst of all, they horde all of their countries massive oil wealth and live a lifestyle that you can't even begin to imagine.  Meanwhile starvation, sickness, and poverty afflict the other 99.9% of Saudi Arabia.

The Bush Family alone has made 1.4 billion dollars off of these scoundrels.  And throughout the 80's and early 90's made sure that the House of Saud was well equipped with the finest American killing technology.  All popular uprisings during that time were put down brutally and most efficiently...all in the name of oil and money.  Is it any wonder that muslims would ask, "freedom for who?"

Lastly, muslims living in their countries want to be free and want to benifit from their own natural resources.  We have actively worked against this in the past and we are actively working against it in Iraq.  Most are none too happy about our presence in Iraq and our decision to keep the country unified.  The three dispirate groups would rather form three separate states where they could protect their culture and live as they choose.  Why this policy of unity?  History.  These three cultures were forced into one country by the British.  Why?  Oil.  In each area, there are massive reserves.  Putting them all inside one border makes them easier to control.  Already we are building the infrastructure to extract the oil.  Already, certain people have been specifically chosen to run in the Iraqi elections...I'm sure the winner will be extremely friendly to certain US companies and their subsidaries...



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> 2. Never say never. Maybe our gas prices will be lower. Maybe my hometown won't get blown up by a terrorist attack. No telling what will or won't affect everyday jane/joe cause the other path wasn't taken.



I'm hoping the above will show you that our current policy will only increase the likelihood of further terrorist activity.  We cannot win the War on Terror by doing the same things that started the War on Terror in the first place.  911 was only one terrible event in a long string of events.  American's need to pick up this string and follow the money.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> 3. Those are both great ideas.



I'm glad we can agree that getting out ASAP and doing everything in our power to cut our dependence of foriegn oil is a good thing.  I think we need to go a step further.  These people in office should never have been elected to office.  The history and the conflict of interest is so mind-boggling that one can only be stunned by their hubris.  We need to ask ourselves, as a country, we we haven't been told the whole truth about the War on Terror and then we need to work to correct this...if that means holding certain individuals accountable, so be it.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> For good or bad....this has been ging on as long as there has been war. We need to try, as a civilized society, to reconcile military necessity (intel. is key to any military operations) with our societies values. Just asking a POW "please" will lenghten war, result in more dead.....however "torture" (beatings, sex abuse etc.) is wrong by our values and of limited practical value. But this is the "real world" war is ugly...how do you wage it "nicely"? Theres necessity and theres limits....apple pie and sunshine isnt in the future IMO.



I think that their are much better ways to wage this war.  None of them are going to be "nice" but they would eliminate the egregious abuse of power by our elected officials.  In fact, they might totally avoid having to "torture" anyone...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 4, 2005)

Its not solely about Iraq though..the way you fight fourth generation warfare IS intelligence. Rolling up terrorist cells and questioning AlQueda leadership is all tied up in this issue. Its not really about any individual theater, its about intelligence..its necessity..and the means of getting it.

Read a little about MAC-V/SOG and the Pheonix Program in Vietnam...same problems, same issues...apparently same old approach too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its not solely about Iraq though..the way you fight fourth generation warfare IS intelligence. Rolling up terrorist cells and questioning AlQueda leadership is all tied up in this issue. Its not really about any individual theater, its about intelligence..its necessity..and the means of getting it.
> 
> Read a little about MAC-V/SOG and the Pheonix Program in Vietnam...same problems, same issues...apparently same old approach too.



Thanks for the resources, I'll check them out.

Still, the War on Terror is more about ideas then actual military action.  In the end, the ideas will probably matter more.  I can't see how torture is going to win any _hearts and minds_.

Furthermore, perhaps the best way to get intelligence is to convince people to freely give it.  How is this done?



> Melissa, devout muslims, not just the terrorists would like us to understand a few things. First of all, the presence of troops in their holy land is an insult. Can you imagine if you had to watch someone take the cross rub it in feces day in and day out? This is how they feel, are we wrong to tell them they shouldn't feel this way, or are we mature enough to realize when we've insulted someone and work to correct it?
> 
> Another thing they are trying to tell us is to stop supporting the House of Saud. These guys make SHussein look pretty normal. They execute people in the streets. They preach a wacko sect of islam that says its legal to kill you wife and daughters if they disobay you. And, perhaps worst of all, they horde all of their countries massive oil wealth and live a lifestyle that you can't even begin to imagine. Meanwhile starvation, sickness, and poverty afflict the other 99.9% of Saudi Arabia.
> 
> ...



Not by continuing these policies...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## mantis (Oct 8, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Im really confused...
> 
> We cant use Physical Torture.
> 
> ...


 let me guess ur one line of techniques.. umm.. rape, and.. oh well, i ran out of words already
 why dont you educate us?
 let me ask you this.. would you do this stuff to animals?


----------



## mantis (Oct 8, 2005)

we wonder why people do things to us..
what do we do to people is the question!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Technopunk ... that is a very good question. You would think that others would be asking the same thing.
> 
> And my answer will, no doubt, be less than satisfying, but perhaps will provide a starting place for further research.
> 
> ...


  How did that work out for them?  Did they stop 9/11 by doing so? How many terrorists did they capture?  Very few.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How much experience do 'B' and 'C' have with getting information from unwilling detainees prior to 9/11/2001? Answer - None


 A was treating it like a criminal matter....and getting nowhere.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How much input did 'B' and 'C' request from 'A' when determining which interrogation techniques are effective? Answer - None.


 Could be because A was failing in the first place.  Why would 'B and C' want input from those who had obviously failed at the given task in the first place?  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> This is not the time for 'On-The-Job-Training'. Yet that is exactly what is going on. Now, there is no doubt quite a bit of generalization in my comments here. But, it is true that the vast majority of interrogations were handled by the FBI in the past. Further, they have very little to do with the current interrogations.
> 
> I'll put Fox Muldar and Danny Scully against Donald Rumsfeld any day.
> 
> Mike


 It's also not the time for "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again".  Seems the alleged expertise of the FBI in dealing with al-Qaeda in the preceeding 10 years, FAILED to prevent or predict terrorist attacks, including 9/11.  What's more, they failed to perceive the nature of the threat, and went after low-level operatives AFTER they committed a crime.  That's wonderful if you chasing drug traffickers or embezzelers.  It's not so good if you're looking for people who are planning on killing thousands of people.  

The FBI wanted to treat terrorism like it treated white collar crime...Spend years accumulating evidence on a couple of people, then hand down indictments.  Sorry, wrong answer.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that their are much better ways to wage this war. None of them are going to be "nice" but they would eliminate the egregious abuse of power by our elected officials. In fact, they might totally avoid having to "torture" anyone...


  I'm interested in learning what ways you are referring to, specifically.  Lets not answer the question with "Well, it's not..."  How about an affirmative answer.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 14, 2005)

From the October 17, 2005 issue of _Newsweek_:

"Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies." Arizona Sen. *John McCain*, a former Vietnam War POW, on the Senate's breaking with the White House and voting to limit interrogation techniques used against terror suspects.


----------

