Cheney : Dunking in water is a "no-brainer"

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Pens1566
We don't know if they have any info. Do you think that some of the people we've had in custody for 2+ years now still have valid operational knowledge?

the answer to that question is yes.

Thats bs. If they do have knowledge of something that was to take place 2+ years in the future, and their jihad friends haven't figured out to change what the captured guy knew about, they're idiots and we're using terror to scare everyone ....... wait, that is what we're doing.

it's not BS. it is 100% true.

hint: it has nothing to do with what they may know about the future.

 

[Pandaren]

Originally posted by: LegendKillerPsychologically, physical torture methods do not work since they either harden the resolve of the subject or make them go nuts and desperate enough to lie to do anything to stop the pain. Waterboarding is quite different, since it isn't so invasive. There are different types of methods which can extract information and have it be quite truthful, waterboarding seems to be one of those methods, from what I have read.

What makes you think that a waterboarded person would not also lie to stop being waterboarded?

The ticking timebomb is more or less fictional, but at the same time operational material doesn't have to be mission critical to be strategically valid.

Just to add -- the ticking timebomb scenario doesn't really make sense. If there's a bomb to go off in 10 mins, and the terrorist knows where it is, if he's tortured, he can simply lie about the location of the bomb. The government will look for the bomb in the wrong place, the bomb goes off, and the terrorist's mission is accomplished.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

There are people in jail for Abu Ghraib, and in your zealous hate of Republicans you still want it to be known as the standing operating procedure? It's ridiculous to treat it as such; action was taken against those responsible.

As for waterboarding, why the hell not? If we aren't going to interrogate the enemy just how the hell do you expect to know what they're up to, with bribes?

You ask "why the hell not?" Because it's illegal, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention which the US is obligated to abide to; "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
...

As for waterboarding, why the hell not? If we aren't going to interrogate the enemy just how the hell do you expect to know what they're up to, with bribes?

If those are the only two options you can come up with, I'll just say I'm glad you're not in charge of our intelligence operations. And if those are the only two options that the people the ARE in charge can come up with, they should be relieved of their jobs on the spot. There have been a lot of studies of interrogation techniques, and most of them suggest that the best approach is to create an environment where the subject WANTS to answer the interrogator's questions...things like waterboarding create an environment where the subject is FORCED to answer the questions. If you can't see an appreciable difference between the two, perhaps you should reflect on the matter a little more.

 

[Zebo]

I do support torture even though I hate Iraq war. I'm sure all of you could be brought to a point of supporting torture under right conditions like someone held your mom hostage and won't tell investigators where she is and she will die in a an hour with timed shotgun blast. Or a nuke etc .. Cheney is right. Holier than thou people need to STFU you arnt fooling nobody

 

[palehorse]

no offense Rainsford, but it's annoying to see people discuss which interrogation techniques work, and which do not, when they have no firsthand training or experience. Do you honestly believe that our intel folks would insist upon using techniques that are not effective? That isn't logical, and you know it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
Just to add -- the ticking timebomb scenario doesn't really make sense. If there's a bomb to go off in 10 mins, and the terrorist knows where it is, if he's tortured, he can simply lie about the location of the bomb. The government will look for the bomb in the wrong place, the bomb goes off, and the terrorist's mission is accomplished.

I think you missed the part about torture and the answers given. The CIA said that people who are tortured will give false information, i.e. they will tell their captor what they think they want to hear. But they do not our right lie. Big difference.
Example: Terrorist doesn't know where bomb is located, gets water boarded
He will tell them the bomb is in the back of a bus if thinks that will stop the water boarding.
However, if he knows the bomb is in a car, he will not tell them it is in a bus.

Now that is what I read from some CIA types talking about water boarding and other 'harsh' techniques. They tell the tale of a guy who was water boarded who talked about chemical weapons that did not really exist as a way to stop the torture.

Personally, I do not know if water boarding IS torture. But I certainly do not want it be used on every terrorist we pick up. Just the worst of the worst and in cases where it might save lives.

For example: This soldier that went missing in Iraq. If we caught someone related to his kidnapping I would have no problem water boarding him if it might help lead to the location of our missing GI.

Finally, about this idea that we should no be water boarding because it will lead the terrorists to treat our prisoners worse is a bunch of BS in my opinion. The terrorists were beheading and killing people taken captive long before any word of Abu Gharaib or other incidents of ?torture? came out in the press. These are evil people, they don?t need excuses to kill Americans or people from any other country. Case in point: ?The group calling itself the Islamic Army in Iraq said they executed the Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni because Italy did not respond to their demand to withdraw troops from Iraq within 48 hours," Ever hear any stories about Italy water boarding?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
no offense Rainsford, but it's annoying to see people discuss which interrogation techniques work, and which do not, when they have no firsthand training or experience. Do you honestly believe that our intel folks would insist upon using techniques that are not effective? That isn't logical, and you know it.

I'm sure the interrogators believe those techniques are effective, but they aren't supermen, they are human beings just like everyone else. And intelligence is a very interesting business, how easy do you think it is to verify most of the information that's obtained from interrogation? Judging the relative effectiveness of the water-boarding approach seems like a non-trivial problem to me. I'm not arguing that such techniques are totally INeffective, I'm suggesting that other methods may be more useful.

And if you are a well trained intel officer or analyst, I'm Hilary Clinton. Obviously I don't know exactly what you do (although I DO know you claim to be in the armed forces, God knows you bring that up at every possible opportunity), but you just don't talk like you have a job that involves dispassionate and rational analysis of information. And while I refuse to get drawn into arguments like this...just how much does one know about random people on message boards?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I do support torture even though I hate Iraq war. I'm sure all of you could be brought to a point of supporting torture under right conditions like someone held your mom hostage and won't tell investigators where she is and she will die in a an hour with timed shotgun blast. Or a nuke etc .. Cheney is right. Holier than thou people need to STFU you arnt fooling nobody

Of course could, I'm sure there exists a scenario where all of us (yes, myself included) would snap and start pulling nipples off with pliers to get what we wanted. But that's the point, we'd be acting out of emotion and behaving irrationally in an extreme situation where traditional morals and beliefs are just cast aside. That does NOT seem like the thing we want to be basing a far reaching policy around. If someone killed one of my family members in a particularly horrible way, there is a good chance I'd take matters into my own hands in making sure they were brought to "justice"...does that mean we should make it legal for me to do so? Of course not.

 

[Zebo]

So you just object to methods being done "in your name"..thats fine, I understand. A nice remote armchair Quater backing position..As I've said 100x pres Bush, needs to keep this stuff on the down low, not proclaim it's its his "right" because it gets people who live in fantasy land nickers all in a bunch. Sometimes realtiy peoples don't want to be confronted with no matter how true so it's best to keep things on down low... Torture and keep a lid on it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zebo
So you just object to methods being done "in your name"..thats fine, I understand. A nice remote armchair Quater backing position..As I've said 100x pres Bush, needs to keep this stuff on the down low, not proclaim it's its his "right" because it gets people who live in fantasy land nickers all in a bunch. Sometimes realtiy peoples don't want to be confronted with no matter how true so it's best to keep things on down low... Torture and keep a lid on it.

My understanding of the bill and the reason it was brought before the house and all this was talked about was that the CIA officers were not questioning anyone using any ?harsh? technique because they were afraid of being arrested at a later date and charged with a crime. Therefore, and Bush said this directly, we needed to clarify the rules so that what they could and could not do was perfectly understood.
I don?t think anyone wants to be out their publicicing these techniques, it does not look good in the eyes of the world. But something had to be done legally.

BTW: It is the people who oppose water boarding and other techniques who have FAR more to gain by making this stuff public. I am sure Bush and CIA would be very happy if no one talked about what was going on. (insert conspiracy response here)

 

[Zebo]

So now Osama and other terrorists orgs can prep themselves for rigorous interegation techniques... practice water bordering.... I would... bad move publicisng these techniques. On several levels...Politically and tactically..

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo
So you just object to methods being done "in your name"..thats fine, I understand. A nice remote armchair Quater backing position..As I've said 100x pres Bush, needs to keep this stuff on the down low, not proclaim it's its his "right" because it gets people who live in fantasy land nickers all in a bunch. Sometimes realtiy peoples don't want to be confronted with no matter how true so it's best to keep things on down low... Torture and keep a lid on it.

Er, what? I object to the argument that torture should be permitted in EVERY case because people might support it in SOME cases. Under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, (say, the very unlikely ticking time bomb scenario) I could understand why an interrogator might torture someone, hell, I might even be able to do it myself if the stakes were high enough. But again, that doesn't seem like a good basis for a general policy, does it? This has nothing to do with living in fantasy land or enjoying an "armchair quarterback" position, it's about the argument that pro-torture folks always put forward that since torture might become acceptable in the most extreme circumstances, it makes sense to permit it to be used as a general interrogation technique.

And please, enough with the "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." bullshit (hey, that's even palehorse's sig, how appropriate). I don't object to torture because I live in some fantasy world where it costs me nothing to object and gives me warm fuzzies to do so, heedless of the certain doom taking such a position will no doubt visit on us all. I object to it because I believe the moral costs of doing so far outweigh any potential upsides of supporting it in almost every situation. If anything, you're the one living in a fantasy world...the pro-torture arguments you and others put forward read less like the reasoned arguments of people who have struggled with the ethical and practical considerations of the issue and instead based their decision off of watching too many episodes of '24'.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo
So now Osama and other terrorists orgs can prep themselves for rigorous interegation techniques... practice water bordering.... I would... bad move publicisng these techniques. On several levels...Politically and tactically..

You know a great way to avoid all this publicity and public discussion of our intelligence practices? Do things that are within the law and within the basic principles that founded this country. Yeah, yeah, I know, "it's too hard". No offense, but anyone who can't defend this country within the limits defined by what separates us from our enemies needs to get out of the business and get back to something more their speed...I suggest writing a column for the Washington Times or working for the Sean Hannity show.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, what? I object to the argument that torture should be permitted in EVERY case because people might support it in SOME cases. Under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, (say, the very unlikely ticking time bomb scenario) I could understand why an interrogator might torture someone, hell, I might even be able to do it myself if the stakes were high enough. But again, that doesn't seem like a good basis for a general policy, does it? This has nothing to do with living in fantasy land or enjoying an "armchair quarterback" position, it's about the argument that pro-torture folks always put forward that since torture might become acceptable in the most extreme circumstances, it makes sense to permit it to be used as a general interrogation technique.

but you see, that's where you're wrong. I can assure you that the harsh techniques are seldom used. they are not the norm. I have a colleague who participated in over 1200 interrogations in Iraq, and none of them went beyond the standard interrogation methods listed in the older unclassified FM34-52 or even the newer 2-22.3. Those, like you, who believe that the new Detainee Act applies to general interrogations are wrong in that assumption. Tens of thousands of interrogations take place every year wherein none of the somewhat "harsher" techniques are utilized. Techniques, such as water-boarding, ARE reserved for the very rare cases wherein guilt of the detainee is beyond question, and the potential information is critical to the success of missions, or in saving lives.

The left would have you believe that dur to the passing of this new Act, the techniques will now be used on street corners around the globe by inadequately trained Privates who have a chip on their shoulder and some sort of need to hurt others. That is an outright falicy. Knowing the truth of the matter, firsthand, is the very reason that Isupport the Detainee Act. This is also the reason that it's very difficult to debate the issue with people who don't know the reality of the situation.

Knowing the reality does not make me "better" than anyone, but it certainly allows me to be better informed on this subject. You can either accept that, or not. I could care less...

 

[Pens1566]

So why the law for something so extraordinarily rare??? It seems to me that if it's necessary to save lives, it will/would be done regardless of the law.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So why the law for something so extraordinarily rare??? It seems to me that if it's necessary to save lives, it will/would be done regardless of the law.

well you've just hit on the entire purpose of the interrogation portion of the Detainee Act. It now exists as a reference for those rare instances when more than the norm is required to gain information. The very call for such an Act was done in response to the lack of guidlines, if you will, that high-level interrogators can refer to when questioning the legality of their techniques. Prior to the signing of this Act, it was up to each individual interrogator to interpret the ambiguous language in the GC's. This led to hesitation, paranoia, and an all around lack of direction. So, what we end up with is an Act that defines the boundaries.

Again, all of this is in regards to very high-level interrogation situations. The "normal" interrogations are hardly effected, as every military interrogator is limited to the less harsh techniques. As I said, a colleague of mine performed over 1200 interrogations, of many types, and none of which went beyond the simple methods.

One thing that most people do not realize is that every single detainee and every single situation are unique. therefore guidelines are required to prevent abuses and misinterpretations of the GC's.

 

[Pens1566]

Laws shouldn't be created for the fringe one in a million cases. Bad idea.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Laws shouldn't be created for the fringe one in a million cases. Bad idea.

So we should have continued to allow the high-level interrogators to interpret the GC's as they each saw fit? They should all be forced to police their own actions and make legal decisions?

The only way to keep from breaking the law is to know the law. Without a specific reference, the ambiguous terms found in the GC's caused too many problems. Now we have the guidance and references required to do the job that needs to be done. The Detainee Act was written for "worst-case scenerio" so as to provide top-down guidance. Those at the bottom (ie. enlisted military interrogators) do not use the harsher methods. The training in such methods is reserved for Agency officers and others at a much higher level who deal with detainees of an abnormal sort. The Detainee Act allows for them to do the job, that is: gain information, from those 1 in 5000 interrogations wherein the less harsh methods are ineffective and the detainee is very likely a HVT (High Value Target), or has information of such.

Please go read FM 2-22.3 HUMINT Collector Operations and tell me if you see anything in there about "Torture" or "water-boarding." (I can save you some time and tell you that neither one is mentioned.)

 

[Pens1566]

It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

I don't believe that the Police are authorized to do anything resembling a harsher technique; even given the Detainee Act. The law does not speak to domestic crimes except in cases involving National Security, terrorist acts, WMDs, etc.

So the real question is this: Should Federal Agents be allowed to waterboard a detainee to save 100,000 lives?

And the word "torture" is ambiguous in and of itself. Some people describe going to the dentist as "torturous," or waiting in line, or being forced to listen to Eminem, or eat raw fish, or simply getting yelled at...or...or...etc. Therein lies the entire problem! What exactly constitutes "torturous" or "inhumane" treatment? Those are the terms that appear in the GC's, and the problem with them is that every individual who reads them draws a different line in the sand. The Detainee Act is meant to prevent the individuals from making the mistake of going too far. Now they know what "too far" is, and they will go to jail if they do so. They can now operate with clearly defined lines in the proverbial sands of interrogation without the burden of any fear of legal repercussion.

And, again, you need to remember that the cases where this comes into play are the rare cases involving HVT's or the imminent loss of innocent lives.

 

[Pens1566]

That's just it, its still up to the individual since it doesn't specify what acts are/aren't torture. BTW, doesn't the military specifically forbid waterboarding???

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

Seconded.

Palehorse, there are many problems with your position, not the least of which is a fundamental difference in our views on the morality of torture, aka 'harsher techniques'.

But I notice how you switch without any notice from the 'ticking bomb' exception into where any 'high level' prisoner automatically qualifies for that treatment.

Suddenly, it's not just a ticking bomb, it's any other info that might have use which could possibly save our troops' lives in operations, which begins to mean almost anything.

I also note that in all your denials of the torture being widespread, you fail to note the practice of extraordinary rendition, such as the innocent Canadian the US kidnapped as his flight stopped at New York on the way to Canada, and sent him to Syria for torture. Gee, sorry. Your system allows for turture I think it's wrong, and I think it's got way too many ways to let situations 'borrow' from the exceptions, and finally the experts challenge the usefulness of the info from torture, though that is not my objection to it.

We're not entitled to all the information these people have. We are allowed to infiltrate, to trick, to spy, to intercept, to bribe, to persuade, to entice info. Not to torture for it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So why the law for something so extraordinarily rare??? It seems to me that if it's necessary to save lives, it will/would be done regardless of the law.

That's my whole point. Keep it on the down low and if rare threats arrise requiring such or any other methods, do it, and accept the consequences. I sorta agree with Rainsford that sanctioning such methods are bad news.. not for the exact same reasons though. Besides weakening our poltical position and image as a champion of human rights....Mainly it weakens your leverage when enemy knows how far you will go... they can prepare themselves for such eventualities.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It's torture. It's illegal. No more ambiguity. Done.

Should police be allowed to waterboard a suspect (which is all they are until proven guilty) to save someones life?

We're better than that. At least we used to be.

Seconded.

Palehorse, there are many problems with your position, not the least of which is a fundamental difference in our views on the morality of torture, aka 'harsher techniques'.

But I notice how you switch without any notice from the 'ticking bomb' exception into where any 'high level' prisoner automatically qualifies for that treatment.

Suddenly, it's not just a ticking bomb, it's any other info that might have use which could possibly save our troops' lives in operations, which begins to mean almost anything.

I also note that in all your denials of the torture being widespread, you fail to note the practice of extraordinary rendition, such as the innocent Canadian the US kidnapped as his flight stopped at New York on the way to Canada, and sent him to Syria for torture. Gee, sorry. Your system allows for turture I think it's wrong, and I think it's got way too many ways to let situations 'borrow' from the exceptions, and finally the experts challenge the usefulness of the info from torture, though that is not my objection to it.

We're not entitled to all the information these people have. We are allowed to infiltrate, to trick, to spy, to intercept, to bribe, to persuade, to entice info. Not to torture for it.

So, you actually believe that the real experts lobbied for ultimately ineffective collection methods? That doesnt make any sense; especially in a time when the entire intelligence gathering system is under severe scrutiny. The systems are being changed to make all of our collection efforts more effective and more efficient, so why would the real experts (not the CNN/Faux guests) ask for permission to do something that doesnt even work that well? Answer: they didnt... so the methods must work in some cases, right?

The bottom line is that everyone draws a different line in the sand and calls it the line that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe that there are methods of gaining information that may not be "fun" or "comfortable" for the detainee, such as the "fear of drowning" caused during water-boarding. Many people agree with me. Therefore, it's obvious that I (we) draw the line much higher than you do in terms of harshness.

so be it.