Shepard Smith from Fox just earned my respect

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: chucky2
And we've got right back to Accountability.

The point is not that the terrorists will be 'knocking on your door'. The point is that the terrorists will be back, killing someone, somewhere (99.997% chance it won't be you or yours though, given the all the area and people in the world). So, because of that very small chance you run, you can take the "Well, they'll never "knock on my door", so please make sure they get all their Red Cross and unsupervised lawyer visits" stance.

The problem is that while you can say that, there are others elsewhere (like the Leadership of our governments, military, and intelligence services) who are accountable for those deaths: Accountable for not doing all they can to stop them.

And that is precisely why the millions of whiners, who despite their sizable voiceprint, don't rate on making the call on what to do, and when to do it, on how we handle WoT detainees. That decision should lie with our elected politcal Leadership, who will in turn appoint the military Leadership and civilian Leadership of the Intelligence services, who control what goes on with these detainees.

We elect the politcal Leadership, nothing less, nothing more.

Since our populace elected Obama this time around, along with more Dem's, then whatever policies they decide to push through are what's going to be followed. The consequences of those polices, both good and bad, will be realized - both in the near term, and the long term.

Chuck

That's a lot of fluff for someone that isn't actually doing anything about the problem.

You seem to think that as long as other people are doing it, that it is okay for us to do. That is about as wrong as you can get. Other people are committing crimes every day. Should our government adopt those philosophies as well because there is the very minute chance that they might come after us?

Maybe we should have the govt create a couple of Christian Madrasahs? I mean, what better way of confronting those evil Muslims than to indoctrinate our own population to be on the lookout for them?

You make a very eloquent appeal for responsibility yet you forget that we have other responsibilities as well. The first and foremost of them is to not stoop to the level of cowards and tyrants and to behave in a manner that makes us respected.

Torturing pretty much accomplishes the polar opposite of that.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: chucky2
And we've got right back to Accountability.

The point is not that the terrorists will be 'knocking on your door'. The point is that the terrorists will be back, killing someone, somewhere (99.997% chance it won't be you or yours though, given the all the area and people in the world). So, because of that very small chance you run, you can take the "Well, they'll never "knock on my door", so please make sure they get all their Red Cross and unsupervised lawyer visits" stance.

The problem is that while you can say that, there are others elsewhere (like the Leadership of our governments, military, and intelligence services) who are accountable for those deaths: Accountable for not doing all they can to stop them.

And that is precisely why the millions of whiners, who despite their sizable voiceprint, don't rate on making the call on what to do, and when to do it, on how we handle WoT detainees. That decision should lie with our elected politcal Leadership, who will in turn appoint the military Leadership and civilian Leadership of the Intelligence services, who control what goes on with these detainees.

We elect the politcal Leadership, nothing less, nothing more.

Since our populace elected Obama this time around, along with more Dem's, then whatever policies they decide to push through are what's going to be followed. The consequences of those polices, both good and bad, will be realized - both in the near term, and the long term.

Chuck

And once again, not a single person within or outside of the intelligence community has been able to show that torture is needed to keep that 0.003% safe.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

Was this a joke question?

Yeah, completely a joke buddy...:roll:

It should be. You really don't think we can get someone to talk besides torturing them? You do know interrogations of criminal suspects are conducted daily across the country minus the torture? What do you think we have been doing for decades before Bush & Co sullied our name? Life long interrogators have some ideas.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

The FBI had expert interrogators who have done well in the past, who were pushed aside unfer the Bush administration. They're fine - info needing torture, we don't get.

But what I mean, is what techniques are used to extract information? My mind is blank with ideas since most of the methods I can think of involve some sort of physical discomfort. I don't know where the line between torture and valid interrogation is set.

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

Was this a joke question?

Yeah, completely a joke buddy...:roll:

The techniques the FBI interrogators found very effective did not involve any torture.

They were actually more about establishing trust and good relations with the detainees.

I doubt that would work with the most determined detainees

Hereis one article on interrogation techniques for domestic use.

Here is a statement by the FBI Counsel to Conbress a year ago:

We were also pleased to see the conclusion of the IG that ?the vast majority of FBI agents in the military zones understood that existing FBI policies prohibiting coercive interrogation tactics continued to apply in the military zones and that they should not engage in conduct overseas that would not be permitted under FBI policy in the United States.? The IG credited the FBI for deciding in 2002 to continue to apply FBI interrogation policies to the detainees in the military zones. The report found that ?most FBI agents adhered to the FBI?s traditional rapport-based interview strategies in the military zones?? The IG also ?found no instances in which an FBI agent participated in clear detainee abuse of the kind that some military interrogators used at Abu Ghraib prison.? The IG credited ?the good judgment of the agents deployed to the military zones as well as guidance that some FBI supervisors provided.?

Consistent with the FBI?s long history of success in custodial interrogations, FBI policy is to employ the same non-coercive, rapport-based interview techniques when interviewing detainees encountered in military zones that we employ in every aspect of our mission, whether in the United States or abroad. As the IG?s report emphasizes, the FBI chose not to participate with other government agencies in joint interrogations in which techniques not allowed by the FBI in the United States were used. When confronted with the question whether the FBI should join agencies using more aggressive interviewing techniques, FBI Director Mueller decided that the FBI would not do so. As the IG report notes: ??the FBI has consistently stated its belief that the most effective way to obtain accurate information is to use rapport-building techniques in interviews.?