Could there be a legitimate reason to have secret prisons over seas?

[eilute]

Is there? or are they purely for the purpose of torture and eluding U.S. law?

 

[PingSpike]

Mobile torture wagons won't be available until late 2006 at the earliest, until then, we'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

 

[nfamous]

Let's say that a terrorist is running loose in some eastern european country.... We want them, but the country they are in isn't helping us.... So we nab em, but the country they were in is wondering where they went... If they showed up in a prison here, then the country would know & be p***** at us... So we shove them in a secret prison.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: nfamous
Let's say that a terrorist is running loose in some eastern european country.... We want them, but the country they are in isn't helping us.... So we nab em, but the country they were in is wondering where they went... If they showed up in a prison here, then the country would know & be p***** at us... So we shove them in a secret prison.

Honestly.. that sounds good and even sounds necessary in some ways.. but we really need to follow the law if we will ever be respected. The United States will not be the super power forever -- our past transgressions may come back to haunt us

 

[Train]

Why does secret neccessarily mean evil?

I can't tell you the total manpower of my battalion (A big No No, especially on the internet, even though its not too hard to figure out) or what our Weapons T.O. is. That doesnt neccesarily mean theres anything bad about how many men we have and what weapons they are carrying.

You probably wouldnt want to show me your medical history either, does that mean you have some sort of evil cybernetic implants? probably not.

The main reasons these prisons are secret is so that Al-Queda wont know where they are, as they would likely want to target them. Not to mention they cant even look for them if they dont know they exist.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

the issue isn't so much the prisons, its that SCOTUS and congresses power stops at the US border but the executive branch can go anywhere it wants.

 

[Todd33]

IMO secret does equal bad in an open free democracy. Some stuff is secret for national security, but most things are secret because they are embarrassing to someone.

 

[Harvey]

Like every nation, we've always had secrets. That doesn't mean total secrecy. There has to be some oversight. That's why we also have oversight committees in Congress.

Like absolute power, ablsolute secrecy corrupts absolutely, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Bushwhackos would abuse it.

We can't defeat an enemy by becoming the enemy we claim to be fighting.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: eilute


Is there? or are they purely for the purpose of torture and eluding U.S. law?

Doesn't secret mean you don't know about them?

 

[musicman87]

Secret prisons can serve the purpose of obtaining intelligence in the most efficient manner. It does not hurt my feelings in the slightest to see a terrorist embarrassed (or tortured) for the sake of possibly saving American lives. It's secret so the pansies back in the US can't raise cane about a baby killing terrorist not recieving the same rights as a law abiding citizen of the US. War is hell, deal with it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eilute


Is there? or are they purely for the purpose of torture and eluding U.S. law?

I guess the other option is to publish where we are housing all the bad guys we are catching, but that does not seem like a good idea either.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: musicman87
Secret prisons can serve the purpose of obtaining intelligence in the most efficient manner. It does not hurt my feelings in the slightest to see a terrorist embarrassed (or tortured) for the sake of possibly saving American lives. It's secret so the pansies back in the US can't raise cane about a baby killing terrorist not recieving the same rights as a law abiding citizen of the US. War is hell, deal with it.

Funny, the Army says otherwise; that torture is an ineffecient method of extracting information and frequently unreliable. It also says that there are better ways of extracting information.

 

[musicman87]

Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

 

[smack Down]

I still haven't seen a reason the prisions are secert. I have seen reason given to keeping secret prisions but none given for not disclosing the location of the prision.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: musicman87
Secret prisons can serve the purpose of obtaining intelligence in the most efficient manner. It does not hurt my feelings in the slightest to see a terrorist embarrassed (or tortured) for the sake of possibly saving American lives. It's secret so the pansies back in the US can't raise cane about a baby killing terrorist not recieving the same rights as a law abiding citizen of the US. War is hell, deal with it.

< sarcasm >

I'd go for it if they promised to prove the theory by testing it on lying terrorists like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby and Rumsfeld. :|

< /sarcasm >

 

[musicman87]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

Hmmm...interesting. Why not just kill 'em if the info is wrong? I guess the standard procedure is to give them candy and porn, and to tell them that they were in the right, that their actions were justified. Just let them give information when they feel like it.:roll:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: musicman87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

Hmmm...interesting. Why not just kill 'em if the info is wrong? I guess the standard procedure is to give them candy and porn, and to tell them that they were in the right, that their actions were justified. Just let them give information when they feel like it.:roll:

Actually, the standard procedure is to use your brain and extract information by other means. There is nothing wrong with psychological trickery. And according to interrogators, it works a lot better than torture.

 

[musicman87]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: musicman87
Secret prisons can serve the purpose of obtaining intelligence in the most efficient manner. It does not hurt my feelings in the slightest to see a terrorist embarrassed (or tortured) for the sake of possibly saving American lives. It's secret so the pansies back in the US can't raise cane about a baby killing terrorist not recieving the same rights as a law abiding citizen of the US. War is hell, deal with it.

< sarcasm >

I'd go for it if they promised to prove the theory by testing it on lying terrorists like Bush, Cheyney, Rove, Libby and Rumsfeld. :|

< /sarcasm >

Cheyney? Must be Bush's Sexreetary of MisSppeling

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: musicman87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

Hmmm...interesting. Why not just kill 'em if the info is wrong? I guess the standard procedure is to give them candy and porn, and to tell them that they were in the right, that their actions were justified. Just let them give information when they feel like it.:roll:

I'm curious, do you know anything at all about interrogation techniques? Are you an expert, do you know any experts, do you have any factual basis for your arguments? Or are your primary sources the TV shows Alias and 24?

I only ask because you seem pretty sure, but you sound like a wannabe tough guy out for blood. Just wondering if you really have any basis to make the claim that torture is an effective interrogation method, or MAYBE you have other motives.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

Hmmm...interesting. Why not just kill 'em if the info is wrong? I guess the standard procedure is to give them candy and porn, and to tell them that they were in the right, that their actions were justified. Just let them give information when they feel like it.:roll:

Actually, the standard procedure is to use your brain and extract information by other means. There is nothing wrong with psychological trickery. And according to interrogators, it works a lot better than torture.

If Democracy has taught us anything, it's that random uninformed people should be listened to and experts should be ignored.

 

[musicman87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

Hmmm...interesting. Why not just kill 'em if the info is wrong? I guess the standard procedure is to give them candy and porn, and to tell them that they were in the right, that their actions were justified. Just let them give information when they feel like it.:roll:

Actually, the standard procedure is to use your brain and extract information by other means. There is nothing wrong with psychological trickery. And according to interrogators, it works a lot better than torture.

If Democracy has taught us anything, it's that random uninformed people should be listened to and experts should be ignored.

Yes, experts on political correctness and not getting anyone's feelings hurt. It's the random uninformed people that vote, unless there is great expert swing-vote I've not heard about.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: musicman87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: musicman87
Oh yes, the Army would say the torture is the most effective means for gathering intelligence....

From the Army Field Manual:

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear

Hmmm...interesting. Why not just kill 'em if the info is wrong? I guess the standard procedure is to give them candy and porn, and to tell them that they were in the right, that their actions were justified. Just let them give information when they feel like it.:roll:

Actually, the standard procedure is to use your brain and extract information by other means. There is nothing wrong with psychological trickery. And according to interrogators, it works a lot better than torture.

If Democracy has taught us anything, it's that random uninformed people should be listened to and experts should be ignored.

Yes, experts on political correctness and not getting anyone's feelings hurt. It's the random uniformed people that vote, unless there is great expert swing-vote I've not heard about.

So you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to interrogation techniques, but you feel justified because you're in good company with all the other idiots who don't know what they are talking about.

And this, my friends, is the weakness of Democracy. Like Winston Churchill said...

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: musicman87
Yes, experts on political correctness and not getting anyone's feelings hurt. It's the random uniformed people that vote, unless there is great expert swing-vote I've not heard about.

Why not answer the question?

 

[musicman87]

To answer the question, I do not believe in interrogations. They should be shot on sight. If you read earlier posts, I have already stated my opinion on the legitimacy of secret prisons.