Ahh, yes, your intellectual prowess is revealed, cikomyr! Good to hear from you, as it's always great to have a battle of wits against the unarmed.

Of COURSE there is a difference between the two, cikomyr, however, as I and others have pointed out, MOST instances of true torture that have been discovered have resulted in the arrests of the offenders. We still have work to do (as I said, Iam in 100% agreement on the issue of waterboarding), but the fact we even KNOW about some of these things says a lot.

You won't gain traction by calling everyone who comes to the debate but disagrees with you "stupid", though!

Again you go way over the edge. I do not call everyone who comes to the debate but disagree with me "stupid", I call those who associates "non-torture" with "Cigars & Scotch" to try to advance their point trough stupid jokes.

If we treated them as we do people in a certain county jail, we would be accused of torturing them.

Then it's the county jail that has a problem(!)

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Thursday, October 11, 2007

I AM still waiting for you to define what is ok to use to interrogate terrorists to gather important information, I already know what you do not approve of, but how about telling us what you think is alright to do to break a hardened terrorists?

you believe anything kahlil sheik mohammed has claimed or denied after being subjected to a procedure you shrug off as no big deal?

one plot shaken loose from ksm was his planned attack on the plaza bank in washington state--a bank that didn't exist in 2003 when he was captured.

in response to your larger question, if our government was acting within the law and in accordance with those principles which purportedly elevate our nation above all others, there'd be no need for expensive renditions. nor would we be pretending the camp at guantanamo exists in some sorta never-never land we somehow occupy but do not control.

whatever's done in those places and in those circumstances is the exact equivalent of those places in detroit police precinct stations--usually in the basement cuz otherwise how could one fall down the stairs?--from which only the dead or comatose emerged without confessing to something.

whether that's still happening hardly matters now. all voluntary confessions are tainted as far as i'm concerned.

[quote]I AM still waiting for you to define what is ok to use to interrogate terrorists to gather important information, I already know what you do not approve of, but how about telling us what you think is alright to do to break a hardened terrorists?[/quote]

Moderateman,

My answer is that other than asking questions there is absolutely nothing that is alright to do to someone, even a hardened terrorist in order to make them talk. Now please, hear me out. If you get arrested by the cops and are taken down to the station for questioning, are the cops allowed to waterboard you as part of their interrogation? Are they allowed to hold a pack of trained attack dogs snarling within inches of you (sometimes the dogs get a little too close and have a little nibble, nothing a few stitches can't fix!) so that you will soil your pants in fear? The answer should hopefully be no, they are not allowed to do that.

The rationale often used for using harsh methods (aka torture) to interrogate prisoners is the ol' ticking time bomb scenario. Hidden under the stands in some stadium full of happy, healthy God-fearing civillians there is a ticking time bomb, with only a few hours to go before the whole shebang goes up like a roman candle! Time to take the gloves off on that terrorist we just caught, so that he'll give up the location of the bomb right? Unfortunately, life is not a Tom Clancy novel. If it were U.S Spec ops would have bagged Bin Laden shortly after 9/11, or would have pursued him till they did. But that's another story. Despite the fact that the tickin' time bomb scenario has never actually hapenned, even if it did buddy probably wouldn't talk if he knew there only were a few hours left before his mission were complete.

The sad truth behind harsh interrogation methods is that they don't usually work to give actionable intelligence. You mentioned earlier that Khaled Sheik was the number 3 man in AQ and he spilled his guts right? Well all the latest noises from the U.S Gov are saying that now AQ is bigger and badder than it ever was before, so his intel obviously didn't hurt them that much. The purpose of torture and "breaking" prisoners has nothing to do with getting good intel. Once someone is broken, they will say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear, just to make the pain stop. That doesn't mean they tell the truth, it means they'll say anything to end it. They'll sign any confession, admit to participating in any and every evil deed the interrogators can think of. While this does nothing to help the fight against terrorism, it does everything toward making the Gov and intel agencies look like heroes. "Look ma, we bagged another one today! an' he confessed to all sortsa evil, those boys at DHS are doin' one heluva job!!" (please imagine banjo music on your own time)

The other problem with using harsh interrogation methods on prisoners is that after you've done that, you can't prosecute them in court. No court that is worth it's weight in salt can or should accept testimony or a confession that was obtained under duress. Even if it's from the most evil scumbag on earth, if you used "creative" ways of getting him to talk, that testimony is completely worthless from a legal standpoint.

I do not condone torture either, but I will not go this far. There are other ways (some would still claim inhumane) that can elicit the information from terrorists, and should be used.

I draw the line between a bank robber (or kidnapper) and a terrorist. One is affored the full measure of rights under our constitution, and even in cases where innocents will die because they refuse to talk, we must grant them those rights to assure that the innocents will not be railroaded.

Terrorists are not citizens, and therefore not subject to our constitution. As such, while torture is not necessary, neither is affording them the protections of our constitution. So the alternative methods can and should be used to extract information. These are non-lethal, and much more effective. Once someone (note not a nation state that is a signatory to the GC) declares war on this country, they have set themselves apart from our laws and constitutional guarantees, and should be afforded none of its protections.

Reply By: ArtysimPosted: Friday, October 12, 2007

wonderful speech, but no answer to my question. This is what makes me nuts about the left ask a question get a lecture about something close to the subject, but not an answer to the question.

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Thursday, October 11, 2007 he waterboarding of Kalil Sheik Mohammed shook loose dozens of plots already in the planning stages to cause more horror on Americans, not just here but anywhere they could be found you believe anything kahlil sheik mohammed has claimed or denied after being subjected to a procedure you shrug off as no big deal? one plot shaken loose from ksm was his planned attack on the plaza bank in washington state--a bank that didn't exist in 2003 when he was captured.

Kingbee, of course there was bullshit thrown in, but much of what he said was verified through other sources and found to be true.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution. I'm one who feels BOTH sides have sold out our Constitution. It's about time we take it back!

How do we go about doing that? I too am disgusted with both parties.

Yea! As Laura Ingrahim would say, "Power to the people"!

of anywhere?

those who are american citizens remain so don't they? (except in the evil dreams of spooky gonzales and others of his ilk.)

he answered it.



i agree.

torture is not only ineffective, it's also both un-american and anti-american.

i've no doubt you deeply love this country mm. which makes it even more difficult for me to understand why you'd even consider approving actions and policies associated with dysfunctional states such as syria, myanmar, iran, egypt, etc.

of anywhere? those who are american citizens remain so don't they?

The implication (although not stated) was of the US.  Frenchmen are not subject to our constitution either, and yes, they are probably citizens somewhere, but they are not US citizens.

And those that are citizens (like John Walker) ARE subject to the laws of our land. And the protections of the Constitution.

cikomyr,

I would try to explain the point of my illustration further if I actually gave a flip. You calling me "stupid" is akin to Osama bin Laden calling Bush a "terrorist".

i've no doubt you deeply love this country mm. which makes it even more difficult for me to understand why you'd even consider approving actions and policies associated with dysfunctional states such as syria, myanmar, iran, egypt, etc.

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Friday, October 12, 2007

I guess when it comes to saving my countrymen I feel most bets are off kingbee.

I do not approve of torture BTW, I just don't consider some of the things I listed as torture, IE: loud music, hot and cold rooms, standing in place, being blindfolded, and for the tough nuts water-boarding. The use of anything else is over the top and I consider it torture, I listed some things in the body of article that I consider torture and do not approve of them.

Have we made mistakes capturing the wrong people? Yes I believe we have. Did some people turn enemies of theirs in as terrorists to get rid of them? again yes they did and we arrested them. We have also erred in the other direction, letting people fool us into believing they were harmless, we released them only to find them on the battlefield again, weapons in hand killing Americans.

Does America torture people as "POLICY" I do not believe this for one moment! Have some Americans went over the line and tortured people, yes I believe so, and when they are found out they are punished as they should be.

The problem I have with all this is, the secular left takes these very few examples of dishonorable conduct by a very very few of our military and paint the entire Bush administration and by extension the military with the same paint brush. If one is bad, they must all be bad, it's this kind of thinking that is tearing America apart.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Saturday, October 13, 2007 I call those who associates "non-torture" with "Cigars & Scotch" to try to advance their point trough stupid jokes. cikomyr, I would try to explain the point of my illustration further if I actually gave a flip. You calling me "stupid" is akin to Osama bin Laden calling Bush a "terrorist".

The last bastion of the left, when losing an argument, change subjects or attack the person on a personal level, demean them, ridicule them.

Moderateman,

I'm not ridiculing you. There have been many, many replies that I would have liked to post regarding this topic but to adequately sum up my opinions it will take a lengthy article. So sometime this week I will post said article outlining a crazy commie's opinions of torture and the current state of U.S interrogation methods, which I look forward to discussing with the good folks at JU.

However tonight is hockey night in Canada. I'ma go get drunk and watch people smash and bash on the ice!

as would (and did) bobby seale to whom the slogan is authoritatively attributed.

i can hardly wait for ingrahim's next effort. titled "power flows from the barrel of a gun", it will be custom-formatted to fit hairshhirt pockets and bound with a red cover.

our nation and each of the states specifically prohibits police from coercing confessions.

you ever know anyone who was taken for 'a ride' by cops or other agents of the law?

i'm guessing you prolly do (may even have been the invitee yourself as have i).

it was (and may still be) a fact of life in two cities i've lived in--a sorta silly exercize seemingly intended to provide ride-givers a pass against perjuring themselves should they need to deny under oath having forcibly violated rights of suspects in their custody. after all, 'a ride' ain't anything official or documented as is 'in custody.'

how do you explain the need for special renditions and interrogations in dungeons built and formerly operated by local incarnations of ss/kgb agencies fielded by previously totalitarian governments of eastern european nations? those have been authorized and approved by the administration.

imagine what woulda gone on in detroit and chicago had their mayors and district attorneys issued a finding approving them 'rides'.

would any of those--utilized the way you've characterized them--persuade you to do or reveal anything you were determined not to do or reveal? how about all of them at the same time?

if not, why would they be so effective in breaking terrorist fanatics eager to jimjones their asses into infinity?

unlike those stupid charmin bears, these guys wipe their asses with one of their hands.

you know the felony stop procedure during which suspects are ordered to lay face-down, arms spread, feet crossed in the street? fortunately for all concerned, i've avoided it so far cuz i'm never gonna submit to that. i'm no zealot and i'm not expecting paradise, virgins or anything else after death as a motivator. it's got nothing to do with a perceived duty to a higher power or giving my all to benefit my blood or associates. anyone who hopes to get any info outta me best do it before trying to make me lay down in the street--while i'm still able to speak.

I hardly find myself in my last bastion when people brings up stupid examples like this. It's like me saying "you should not cut them 1 inch of limb every time they refuse to answer". It's ludicrous to suggest such absurdity.

And it's the last bastion of every side to resorting to such attacks, MM. desperation is not carried only by the lefties.

And would you believe me that in my country, I am considered a somewhat strong conservative?




regular and legal ways of interrogation. Simply get them uncomfortable conditions - caused by the lack of comfort, such as nice food, or nice beds, etc.. -, and interrogate them for hours every day.

Strong music can be considered as psychological torture, be damaging for the ears.
Too cold/hot rooms can cause health problem, which should not be allowed.

Outside of that, I don't know much about interrogation. But I know what should not be allowed. You owe it to your country to uphold it's ideals.




The trick for a nation to use such means is simply to lay blame to "rogue" elements, but until they are found out, they put a blind eye to their activities. Section 31 in Star Trek is the perfect example of questionnable organisation working for a so-called "Good" governement.

If you truly believed in the ideals of no-torture, you would not resort to loopholes argument such as "they are not citizens, they are unlawful combattant, i would not call "this" torture". You find reason to uphold an ideal you believe in, not reasons to bypass it.

And on the long run, these activities are doing much more harm to America in it's WoT efforts than anything else. The idea is: terrorist organisations are like bacteria. They grow, and when you use a special drug to cure it, you rarely manage to get rid of them all forever. The strongest, smartest elements will survivre, learn from it's previous defeat, and attack even stronger than before.

Al-Qaeda was "crippled" (by the words of the US Gov last year), but now, it seems it's stronger than ever. It learned from it's past defeats.

You should not try to "kill" Al-Qaeda, but beat it by attrition, by relieving it of it's growing base.. or its "food-source" (if you compare it to a living organism). Make all the lands unfertile to it's developpement, and the threat will become trivial over time.

Torture them, attack countries, you will simply create more recruits for them.

 

 

eply By: CikomyrPosted: Sunday, October 14, 2007

I AM still waiting for you to define what is ok to use to interrogate terrorists to gather important information, I already know what you do not approve of, but how about telling us what you think is alright to do to break a hardened terrorists? regular and legal ways of interrogation. Simply get them uncomfortable conditions - caused by the lack of comfort, such as nice food, or nice beds, etc.. -, and interrogate them for hours every day. Strong music can be considered as psychological torture, be damaging for the ears. Too cold/hot rooms can cause health problem, which should not be allowed.

We are dealing with people that are use to the conditions you describe, how would treating them that way differ from what they are use to?

Besides, what a few people do even if the number is as high as one thousand Americans breaking the law and using methods defined as torture, that is hardly a dent in the amount of people that have served {around 500,000 or more} and hardly makes it American policy. We do not torture people! period.