Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1194
December 11th, 2014 at 1:07:31 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

If one was picked up, but really didn't have much useful information, how would you convince your interrogators you weren't lying? Denials mean more torture for people who also don't know much of anything useful.

Oh, he "claims" he doesn't know anything about that. Keep it going for another week then, and if he still hasn't produced anything useful I guess we can believe him.



Here's the thing. They often admit they know about a bomb attack coming up. Some do it as a bluff, but some are certainly telling the truth. The reason People know who knows what is because they usually admit that they do but refuse to tell where or when.....
"Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess. -Thomas Paine
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 158
  • Posts: 8927
December 11th, 2014 at 2:33:54 AM permalink
If I was a terrorist, and I was expected to give up other fellow terrorists, I would have a short list of people who had nothing to do with terrorism to turn in first already prepared. If these people are rounded up from the local area, and dumped into the CIA "enhanced interrogation" site, that is a recruiting tool.

For that matter, we could plant some material near homes as "dummy" operations. The occupants don't know the materials are hidden nearby, but me and my captured terrorist buddies turn in the innocents as we give up our valuable info. They have some proven materials and or plans for making bombs, and voila, I have more recruits or sympathizers when these people are rounded up by mistake. And all their relatives, likely become sympathizers, as well..

I mean, it seems like such an operation can be turned to recruiting for the other side with a little effort. I mean, it already is, but it can be made better with some counter tactics.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
1BB
1BB
Joined: Oct 10, 2011
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 5339
December 11th, 2014 at 2:54:48 AM permalink
Quote: terapined

Like the massacre at My Lai



Thankfully, that was a year and a half before my time. I was, however, familiar with the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Look that one up if you really want to turn your stomach.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1194
December 11th, 2014 at 5:05:40 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

If I was a terrorist, and I was expected to give up other fellow terrorists, I would have a short list of people who had nothing to do with terrorism to turn in first already prepared. If these people are rounded up from the local area, and dumped into the CIA "enhanced interrogation" site, that is a recruiting tool.

For that matter, we could plant some material near homes as "dummy" operations. The occupants don't know the materials are hidden nearby, but me and my captured terrorist buddies turn in the innocents as we give up our valuable info. They have some proven materials and or plans for making bombs, and voila, I have more recruits or sympathizers when these people are rounded up by mistake. And all their relatives, likely become sympathizers, as well..

I mean, it seems like such an operation can be turned to recruiting for the other side with a little effort. I mean, it already is, but it can be made better with some counter tactics.



That would (maybe) be effective if America just tortured people whimsically, but given that this has occurred only a handful of times and only to well established terrorists, the chance of picking up some random person on a street because somebody dropped their name is very slim.

And unfortunately they are already not hurting for recruits.

What would make wealthy British kids drop out of college and join ISIS? They were not abused nor was their family. They were brainwashed...

People who have the disposition to become brainwashed into becoming mass murdering terrorists don't need geopolitical motives.
As (I don't recall if it was you but somebody) said earlier, Osama, has rich parents, filthy rich parents, who were great friends of the west and everyone, but he ran off to live in desert terrorists camps. He could have been a billionaire living in a castle in Dubai (or anywhere) with multiple wives, but instead he wanted to run around the desert attacking people "Who infringe on the Holy Land" Why would he do this? What material motive could he possibly have? He had one motive and that was a belief that he was spiritually superior to most of the planet.
"Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess. -Thomas Paine
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 97
  • Posts: 13591
December 11th, 2014 at 6:14:01 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Quote: boymimbo

It doesn't matter what ISIS does... It doesn't matter what a few muslim extremists do...It would have been far more effective to take these people in, treat them well



MrV,

I think you turned what boymimbo said into something he didn't say. The first two fragments above were in reference to the US having a higher standard of treatment of prisoners than those people. At least that's been our sworn commitment, and expectation of our government, since at least WWII. Those other two entities have established their own, much lower standard, which is what he was saying.

The last part was a suggestion of a better way to get results for extracting info than the torture the US resorted to.

I call foul. If you're going to quote, be accurate about it and don't distort the message you're then going to mock or critique.

Thank you.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Tanko
Tanko
Joined: Apr 22, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 967
December 11th, 2014 at 6:30:06 AM permalink
This was the Dems parting shot before relinquishing control of the Senate.

The CIA lost 16% of their personnel due to Clinton's budget cuts.

Then Clinton and America saw the first World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing. the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. and the the US Cole bombing.

We also saw the Oklahoma City bombing.

Then there was 9/11.

The towers burned for 101 days, incinerating more than 2,000 people.

I breathed that acrid smoke and breathed their ashes for months.

My nephew, who worked in one of the towers managed to duck under an overhang as the first plane hit.

He saw no less than twenty-five people leap from the tower and 'explode like pumpkins' only feet from where he was standing.

Waterboarding. Sleep Deprivation. Inhumane. Traumatizing.

"Wahhh"

Man Up.

Real torture is waking up each day as thousands do, for the rest of your life and dealing with the fact that your daughter, son, wife, husband, mother, father, died horribly in those towers and is never coming home.

Real torture is the thought of what their last moments were like.

If torturing an enemy combatant saves a single life, it is worth it.

If the idea of torturing an enemy combatant is too much for anyone's delicate senses to bear, they can hide in the bushes and shiver like a scared dog for all i care..

Let the strong deal with it.

Former CIA Director Hayden says the policy yielded a 'Home Depot' sized trove of intel.

Current CIA Director Brennan said "Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used, did produce intellegence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives".
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 153
  • Posts: 5540
December 11th, 2014 at 6:42:40 AM permalink
Quote: Tanko

This was the Dems parting shot before relinquishing control of the Senate.

The CIA lost 16% of their personnel due to Clinton's budget cuts.

Then Clinton and America saw the first World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing. the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. and the the US Cole bombing.

We also saw the Oklahoma City bombing.

Then there was 9/11.

The towers burned for 101 days, incinerating more than 2,000 people.

I breathed that acrid smoke and breathed their ashes for months.

My nephew, who worked in one of the towers managed to duck under an overhang as the first plane hit.

He saw no less than twenty-five people leap from the tower and 'explode like pumpkins' only feet from where he was standing.

Waterboarding. Sleep Deprivation. Inhumane. Traumatizing.

"Wahhh"

Man Up.

Real torture is waking up each day as thousands do, for the rest of your life and dealing with the fact that your daughter, son, wife, husband, mother, father, died horribly in those towers and is never coming home.

Real torture is the thought of what their last moments were like.

If torturing an enemy combatant saves a single life, it is worth it.

If the idea of torturing an enemy combatant is too much for anyone's delicate senses to bear, they can hide in the bushes and shiver like a scared dog for all i care..

Let the strong deal with it.

Former CIA Director Hayden says the policy yielded a 'Home Depot' sized trove of intel.

Current CIA Director Brennan said "Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used, did produce intellegence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives".



Great post. But the liberals will pick it apart, not for valid reasons but because it was Bush. But on a good note, they seem to have forgotten about how racist the police are for a few days. And they seem to be ignoring the budget talks that have placed far left loons like Warren against more normal Dems who dont think Wall Street is out to get everyone.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 97
  • Posts: 13591
December 11th, 2014 at 6:50:31 AM permalink
Quote: Tanko

This was the Dems parting shot before relinquishing control of the Senate.

The CIA lost 16% of their personnel due to Clinton's budget cuts.

Then Clinton and America saw the first World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing. the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. and the the US Cole bombing.

We also saw the Oklahoma City bombing.

Then there was 9/11.

The towers burned for 101 days, incinerating more than 2,000 people.

I breathed that acrid smoke and breathed their ashes for months.

My nephew, who worked in one of the towers managed to duck under an overhang as the first plane hit.

He saw no less than twenty-five people leap from the tower and 'explode like pumpkins' only feet from where he was standing.

Waterboarding. Sleep Deprivation. Inhumane. Traumatizing.

"Wahhh"

Man Up.

Real torture is waking up each day as thousands do, for the rest of your life and dealing with the fact that your daughter, son, wife, husband, mother, father, died horribly in those towers and is never coming home.

Real torture is the thought of what their last moments were like.

If torturing an enemy combatant saves a single life, it is worth it.

If the idea of torturing an enemy combatant is too much for anyone's delicate senses to bear, they can hide in the bushes and shiver like a scared dog for all i care..

Let the strong deal with it.

Former CIA Director Hayden says the policy yielded a 'Home Depot' sized trove of intel.

Current CIA Director Brennan said "Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used, did produce intellegence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives".



Two things to consider, please.

1. If torture had proven to be an effective route to valid, life-saving information, perhaps the argument has validity. It didn't.

2. What America do you want us to be? Can we take the high road, look ourselves in the mirror, whatever metaphor you prefer, if we lower ourselves to this methodology? I want to be the America that belongs at the top of the list, not the bottom.

As a retired ATC, active during that and the following days, my continued condolences.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8484
December 11th, 2014 at 7:25:57 AM permalink
I'm against capital punishment because I don't think it's right to kill someone because they killed someone (or multiple people). Lock them up for the rest of eternity for all I care. I just don't think they should be killed. [But then again, I don't know anyone who has been killed by someone else, so maybe I'm slightly on the liberal side on this one.] But that's for capital punishment.


As for torture -- it depends.

In my opinion, torture is wrong if it's retaliation or punishment (and obviously for the torturer's satisfaction) -- same principle as above regarding capital punishment.


BUT, if it's used on people who have information which we would need in order to save lives (ie: terrorist who knows about an upcoming attack....or has any information that he has).....then torture is justified. I view it similar to self-defense: If someone is coming at me with a knife or a gun, with intent to kill me, I can pull out my gun or knife and kill the person and it is justified. If someone has someone at knife/gun-point and are threatening to kill that person, I can justifiably shoot that person. Actually, I believe it would be wrong to NOT shoot the person (assuming I can get a good shot, won't hit other people, yada yada yaa).

In the same way, torturing terrorists to get information would save lives. Not trying to get that information would be wrong.



Torture vs trial:

A trial is used to figure out if someone is guilty or not -- and if they are, what their punishment would be. Torture is not punishment. Torture is getting information from that person. Sure, have a trial if you want to punish the person -- but you're not getting information out of the person because you had a trial.


Let's say there's some psycho kid in high school and he threatens he's going to burn the school down, or have someone he knows burn down the school (or burn down another school or building). You can have a trial and figure out if he's guilty or not and what his punishment should be for threats of burning down the school. But even if he is found guilty, you don't know who is going to burn down which school or building nor when. If you can get the information he has (who burns what when), great. But he might rather go to prison than give up his information on his buddy. [I'm not saying torture the kid.]

If you're going to figure out the information this high school kid has, you can ask other kids at the school, teachers and parents, look at text messages and emails, look at his friends, any websites he's visited, etc. Easy enough.

How are you going to do that with terrorists? Just go around, asking members of ISIS, their family members, or others on the street, "Hey, do you know anything about ISIS? Like if they have any plans to do anything soon? Who their leader(s) is/are?" Now can you look up their emails and text messages [well, maybe...but....].



The point of a trial is to seek guilt and punishment.

The point of torture is to seek information and prevent deaths.




I particularly don't like the comment like, "the information they found wasn't useful/helpful" in defense of why they shouldn't have been tortured. In other words, "they shouldn't have been tortured because the information retrieved wasn't valuable".

To me, that seems very similar to gambler's logic / fallacies they believe in. You're at a blackjack table, you're at third base and hit your hand. You take the "dealer's bust card". Their logic: "You shouldn't have hit because you took the dealer's bust card." But really, you hit the hand because it has the highest EV. On the other hand, if you had stayed on the hand, and the dealer busted then you "did the right thing because the dealer busted".

Doing the right thing is not and cannot be determined through hindsight.


What if they had gained a whole bunch of valuable information and had saved many lives through torturing the terrorists? They could not have known how much (if any) valuable information would have been acquired through torture. But what they can figure out (maybe not definitively) is how much valuable information can they EXPECT. If they expected zero information, then the torture was wrong. If they expected to get enough information, then the torture was justified. I suspect that they expected to get some/enough valuable information to make it justifiable. Unfortunately, the actual information they got wasn't as much as they were expecting. Negative variance, if you will.



And please don't respond with stuff like, "You can't relate gambling and torture", or "So you want to torture a high school kid that threatens to burn down the school?" or other such non-arguments.
# Свободный Натан
Twirdman
Twirdman
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
December 11th, 2014 at 8:36:00 AM permalink
Quote: RS



I particularly don't like the comment like, "the information they found wasn't useful/helpful" in defense of why they shouldn't have been tortured. In other words, "they shouldn't have been tortured because the information retrieved wasn't valuable".

To me, that seems very similar to gambler's logic / fallacies they believe in. You're at a blackjack table, you're at third base and hit your hand. You take the "dealer's bust card". Their logic: "You shouldn't have hit because you took the dealer's bust card." But really, you hit the hand because it has the highest EV. On the other hand, if you had stayed on the hand, and the dealer busted then you "did the right thing because the dealer busted".

Doing the right thing is not and cannot be determined through hindsight.


What if they had gained a whole bunch of valuable information and had saved many lives through torturing the terrorists? They could not have known how much (if any) valuable information would have been acquired through torture. But what they can figure out (maybe not definitively) is how much valuable information can they EXPECT. If they expected zero information, then the torture was wrong. If they expected to get enough information, then the torture was justified. I suspect that they expected to get some/enough valuable information to make it justifiable. Unfortunately, the actual information they got wasn't as much as they were expecting. Negative variance, if you will.



And please don't respond with stuff like, "You can't relate gambling and torture", or "So you want to torture a high school kid that threatens to burn down the school?" or other such non-arguments.



The issue is the expected information is and should have been considered to be near worthless. Torture is just not a reliable means of getting information. I mean say I'm being tortured and you're looking for the location of a bomb. I believe in my cause and I want the bomb to go off so I give false information to get the torture to stop and you spend time tracking down a false lead. I mean if all I have to give is "something" to get the torture to stop I can give false info until the plan succeeds. Now instead say you keep torturing me after I give actual true information since you have no way of knowing whether I'm lying or telling the truth well now I'm signficantly less inclined to give any sort of information because I still get tortured and my plan doesn't succeed so its a lose lose for me to say anything. Torture is ineffective at getting information and it basically has been every time it is used. I mean just look at when police interrogations were less controlled people admitted to crimes they couldn't have committed just to get it to stop and that level wasn't anywhere near what the CIA did to some people but magically it is now supposed to produce real information. There is a reason police protocol now put restrictions on what you can do to get testimony.

  • Jump to: