Doubleplusgood

You must not have read my scenario, the guy was NOT innocent.

maybe he wasnt but what is the ratio of innocents needed to find the 1 guilty guy?

how many innocents are needed to produce 1 guilty? 3 guilty to 2 innocents? 5:1, 10:1

I say if we do this to 1 innocent, the ratio is fucked

where does your morality say it is ok? What percentage of them must be guilty to justify torturing innocents?

also, perhaps you are unaware that protection from torture works both ways, which, unless you want your brothers (our servicemen) tortured in retaliation, why on earth could you try to justify this?

Schwanson, what Mulch did your scenario is exactly what you did to his... He spun it around and showed why the system you seem to espouse is not going to fully work.

If a guy says he is a terrorist under torture, it is an extracted confession...
And cannot be certified as true.
The worst part about it is... let's say that there is a whole chain of innocent people that are kidnapped, tortured and killed in this way, each fingering the next one before dying or being sent to prison forever for being a terrorist (What, you expected this "confessed torrorist" to go free so he can live his life? Think more deeply). What's to prevent the inquisitioners from trumping up a story that says they "Found this cell" and cleared it out? They'll be lauded as heroes...on a lie they may not even know is one.

What's to prevent someone from pointing the finger at you while they are under "interrogation"? Is your life, or the loss thereof, an acceptable sacrifice in the name of protecting those 25,000? Even though they are not really under threat?
Now your torturers are heroes, and you are dead, or worse, you fingered someone else in your delirium to make the pain stop, or to save your child and your wife.

Justified?

I think not.

1.


It's called a "honey trap". And it's been standard practise in the intelligence services of many nations - toward prisoners, agents, and civilian targets. The Israelis and Russians do it best.

2. It's worth noting that torture is terrorism - and terrorism often relies on emotional techniques that are closely related to torture. Both use similar psychological tactics to generate anxiety, distress, the weakening of the will, etc., to achieve similar advantages over the subject adversary. Sometimes the objectives of terrorism and torture are similar, too.

quite true

there is but 1 terrorist state on the planet

the united states of america

for shame

Aside form the fact that torture is bad, it also just doesn't work.

The only informatio you get from people is information they think you want to hear. We call that bad intelligence and I think we've had enough of that lately.

Yeah, those secret US run eastern European prisons were probably just normal jails. They were kept secret for um, security, yeah that's it security reasons. Nothing to do with their illegality. And the "detainees" who've died while being "debriefed" probably did it to make the USA look bad. Yeah, that's it, they died to make the President look like a mean man. And the water board, it's not really torture to make some one think he's being drowned. No, not at all. Holding some one under water until he or she passes out isn't physical abuse, it's, um, it's just, umm, over zealous bathing???

If I held up a gun and threatened to shoot you, but I really didn't mean it, would it be a crime? You bet your sweet bippy it would be. If one American official engages in torture with the assent of the government, it is as if we all assented. And I don't.

Truly a horrible story.

So, let us suppose that we abandon any kind of force in interrogation of suspected (or known) terrorists.

How do we gain information needed to fight them?

I'm not just being argumentative either... This is a valid question. I'm not suggesting that there is no answer either... But I'd honestly like to know how you would do this type of thing.

Harsh tactics such as psychological warfare are certainly not nice... but they are effective. I realize that alone is not justification, but we must consider that by refusing to use such things, you intentionally place yourselves at a very large disadvantage in the conflict. Certainly, terrorists will not uphold such moral values.

Do you believe that you can win such a conflict, while living under such strict rules?

Infiltrators, double agents, surveillance and detective work.

Also, interrogation is still not out of the question, but you can't beat, waterboard, hang, or rape a confession out of anybody. The most effective interrogation tools are "good cop/bad cop", which directs the prisoner into cooperating as a "way out", and the aforementioned "honey trap". In fact, one of the most successful German interrogator in WW2 didn't beat information out of anyone. He comforted them by giving them a buffet and liquor in a well-furnished dinning room, which, after starving sober in the cold for a few days, seems like heaven. He basically used it to whittle down their defenses and make them cooperative.

Who said fighting is always the best answer?

when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

just because the only area we excell at in the US is arms manufacturing (called laughably, defense industry) doesn't mean there aren't other avenues worth exploring



well, if you step on a nail, and it is sticking out of your foot, and hurting you, you could take painkillers to make it stop hurting. Or you could remove the nail. When examining where we are in history, it is important to look at symptoms (9/11 being one) vs cause.

The rabid hawks go after my type as the "blame America 1st" crowd. Sure, I could ignore the fact that we wag our weapons at everyone and say "with us or against us." That we bomb someone from 600 miles away, never actually placing ourselves in danger (well, someone elses poor child does ie our ground troops). That we loan nations money that we know they won't be able to pay back, so that when they default we can take over the infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, then jack up the prices with little investment leaving the poor to suffer more.

We are the last remaining superpower, and we are not using this power with responsibility. We are demanding the world bend to suit us. We are raping other countries of their resources, leaving starving people worse off than when we got their.

I guess what I am getting at, is what exactly do you mean "this type of thing?"

If you mean terrorism, I assure you killing poor civilians with our big guns is doing nothing but creating the basis for a new generation of orphans to become terrorists (which is a tactic, especially offective by a weaker, less armed enemy)

If China rolled into your town with tanks and all you had were small arms and explosives, wouldn't the "patriotic" thing to do be taking out those tanks, no matter what method you used?

There is an old saying, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.



large disadvantage in the conflict?

you are buying into the propoganda that distorts the actual danger level you face.

do duct tape, plastic wrap, and orange levels really scare you?

there have been no other attacks in the US. the fear is in your mind, placed there by those who would use such fear to accomplish their own ends



no military can face us. A few radicals are giving thier own life for a cause they beleive is right. I cannot agree that they are right or using the correct means to get what they want, but they certainly aren't killing themselves for money. And they are the most brilliant enemy ever, we can't beat them. They have no country, they have no army, they have no face. How do we know we actually won, unless we are told?



(been googling trying to find the quote from Cheney where he mentioned this would be a 100 year war, havent found it. post a link if you know where to find the quote, and I will edit it in)

We kill for money. It sucks to be those who don't realize this, but even though our opponents aren't good guys, we are the bad guys. Most of us are just too insulated and comfortable to see the damage we do unto this world and its people, in the name of money (capitalism).

The United States is a terrorist nation no better than any conquering, pillaging marauders. We use our strength to profit, not to heal. If we don't wake up, one shudders to think of the possible outcomes for aligning ourselves with evil.



Let me ask you this. You have a nieghbor. If you started trimming the trees around your home with a chainsaw, then continued trimming until you were tearing the walls out of his house next door, on his property, destroying what was his, and later when you were away/asleep/whatever he blew up your chainsaw, would you have the right to go over to his house and kill him because he was interfereing with your "way of life?"

do we deserve to win?

I guess what I am saying, is maybe if we started behaving, acting responsibly, and worrying about the ecology of the planet (earthwise and people wise), and get off this egotistical kick that only we matter and only our needs are important (and important enough to terrorize and murder 10 times the amount of civilians than were killed on 9/11), will we be able to "play well with others" again and maybe, just maybe, people won't want to kill us so badly to improve the world that they won't blow themselves up to do it.

I hope that the people realize what is being done in their name; with their tax dollars. They are supporting murder, terror, and looting. Until the people are outraged enough to realize the precious gift our "government for the people by the people" is, and stand up and not tolerate this sick greed, and stop the madness, we are on a date with destiny that won't end well. And the govt keeps trimming our rights (patriots act) in the name of "security." When we collectively wake up, it may very well be too late.

With a representative govt, every decision GWB makes is YOUR decision. So if you get tortured by a "terrorist" you have earned it by allowing Bush to torture others

I especially suggest reading 1984 by Orwell and pay attention to the parts about language and war and how they are used by the govt to "tame the masses," and 9/11 by Chomsky and see the meticulously documented instances of the US acting as a terrorist state all over the world, if you truly want to understand the liability our govt has left us.

only by going to the cause can we cure what he have sown.

Well, I believe that we already agreed that physical abuse could be done away with... Certainly beatings and rapes. Waterboarding isn't really harmful to the prisoner, but hey, if you want to get rid of that too, *shrugs*.

But the "good cop bad cop" routine doesn't really work... unless the prisoner actually thinks he's in danger. If he KNOWS that you will never hurt him, and you aren't even allowed to try to convince him that you will hurt him, then you really don't have any "bad cop"... You have no bargaining chips at all.

Ok, I'll try to deal with your post Mulch, but it's quite long and a lot of it doesn't really pertain to the argument at hand...



Okey doke.. You don't like the US. That's cool. I'm sure you'd characterize it as actually loving the US, and just disagreeing with policy.. or whatever. It really doesn't matter.

I've found that a very good way to gain perspective on the actual merits of the US, is to talk to people who actually lived in the Soviet Union when it was still around.

The US did a lot of bad things over the years. But, it's still "the good guy".

But, whatever.. this is neither here nor there. I surely am not going to convince you of this, and you're surely not going to convince me that the US is a great force for evil in the world. So, let's move on.




This is kind of disturbing.

I mean, seriously, if you think that terrorists are "freedom fighters", I suspect we will have a very hard time finding common ground.

You see, the key difference in my mind is that a terrorist operates by means of instilling terror (hence the name). Terrorists intentionally target civilians. Terrorists don't really go after military targets.

So, if chinese tanks rolled into your town, and you fought them, you wouldn't be a terrorist.. If it was indeed your OWN country, you'd be defending it.. if it was someone else's country, you'd be an insurgent... But if you chose instead to just go and kill some random chinese civilians? THEN you'd be a terrorist. Are we clear on the difference here?




I see no real point in getting into an argument about whether or not doing less would have resulted in a terrorist attack... It's pure speculation. It's easy to say everything's peachy, when you have other people taking care of your problems, and you don't realize they're there.

But, in terms of what I meant by a large disadvantage in the conflict, I meant this:

There are terrorists who want to kill you. (I'm assuming you are American.. perhaps not.. although if you're from a western country, they most likely want to kill you.)

Knowing things that they know, helps us stop them from executing those plans.

By abandoning interrogation, you are voluntarilly choosing to place yourself at a disadvantage. You are choosing to not know as much as you possibly could.

Do you understand now?



I'm honestly not interested in trying to argue for the merits of capitalism and democracy. The only people who think that there is some better economic system than capitalism, are those who lack a fundamental grasp of economics and history.



I have to assume that you understand the absurdity of your example here.

The biggest threat to fundamentalist Islam is not the US blowing them up with weapons... The biggest threat is spread of trade and culture.

And this stuff is most certainly not FORCED on anyone. It's simply attractive. People see all the nice big shiney stuff that Americans have, and they tend to think, "Hey, it'd be nice if I had that!" They see the freedom that Americans enjoy (especially women and minorities), and they say, "Hey, I want that too!"

This is a major threat to groups like Islamic fundamentalists...You threaten their power structure.

But you see, there's no way for us to NOT threaten that power structure. Our mere existence is a threat to them. Due to the growth of technology, it's really not possible to simply hide western culture from their people any more. Western culture doesn't need to be FORCED on them, because most people will want western culture on their OWN (or at least some aspects of it, like material wealth and freedom). The only way to make them not want it, is to make western culture go away completely. And that's pretty much what the terrorists want.



It's truly ironic that you would use ORWELL to try and argue against capitalism.

Again, I seriously suggest that you speak to someone who actually lived in the Soviet Union, and was NOT party. Orwell was writing about the Soviet Union, and I assure you that the conditions of that society were MUCH different than our own. While I've noticed that a lot of people in this particular forum seem to like throwing around the word Facsist, I feel that this trivialization of the word stems mainly from people not having any experience with a true totalitarian state.



I believe that you are falling for the mistaken belief that if we simply did nothing, terrorists would simply leave us alone. This is somewhat impossible, as we can't actually take NO action in the world. We can't just freeze ourselves in some kind of bubble and never interact with anyone ever again. But, even if it were possible, that really is not good enough for the terrorists.

Do you understand that groups like Al Qaeda want to institute an islamic state? Despite all of your problems with American society, do you honestly believe that living under a theocracy would be BETTER? Do you agree with their beliefs regarding your freedom to practice (or not practice, for that matter) any religion you want? Do you agree with their beliefs regarding the rights of women?

Because, I guarantee you that they don't really care if they offend your sensibilities. If they ruled your society, you wouldn't be able to complain about any of that stuff. They would kill you for it.



It's interesting though.. after I replied to all of this, I realized that virtually none of your post actually dealt with the topic at hand, namely interrogation techniques. Hopefully you can explain to me how we can address the self imposed disadvantages that I explained above.

Curiously, I thought the topic at hand was an administration denying the use of torture while at the same time pressing for the use of torture.

Ya, which evolved into a discussion of whether or not psychological techniques consituted torture, and whether believing that was the case meant that you could not actually effectively combat terrorism.

is THAT what all this says?? That's crazy, you can't combat terrorism.

Do you honestly believe that? Sorry, hard to pick up sarcasm through the internet.

Which is a silly discussion - and rather like trying to figure out whether the Axis powers lost the Second World War because of some of the design features of the Panzer mkIV tank.

I don't think it's silly. It's certainly worth thinking about.

If you are choosing to abandon all interrogation techniques which may be the least unpleasant, you need to come up with techniques that will serve the same purpose, or you need to explain how such interrogation is wholely unnecessary.

Sometimes, things are bad, but still necessary. If you want to get rid of them, you need to explain why they're not necessary. Otherwise, you're making decisions based on a very small chunk of the big picture.

Oh, and the answer to your question is "No. That is not why the Axis lost WWII."

Exactly. With a car battery on the balls, anybody would tell you what you want to hear.
Yeah. Marketing makes things look better. But that's, as you said, a hit at the totalitarian islamic regimes' power base. People start to demand their rights, corrupt autocrats try giving inflammatory speeches and extremists plant bombs in hotels and nightclubs. All because people don't believe in banter of some xenophobic medieval Arabian goatherd anymore.
Chomsky was good when he was focused on logic and semantics. When that old fart got into sociology, he started spewing utter leftist bull**** like it still was 1968. I guess he was so busy he didn't take notice that a lot of years passed.

That was one of the most well thought out, intelligent posts I've read on the subject. I know war is ugly...but this isn't a "typical" war...this is a war on terrorism, and it DOES have to be fought differently.

I don't like what's going on, I didn't vote for our fearless leader, but I do see the bigger picture...I'm glad you put this out there. 9/11 was not the first attack on the WTC, just the one that finally made us say, "enough"!

First off, I'd like to commend you with agreeing with parts of what differing parties said, as it shows that you don't really have any kind of crazy blinding bias.

This part though, I most certainly agree with. I actually do work in linguistics and computer science, so I am familliar with Chomsky's original work. For the time, it was interesting stuff (although it's very outdated now).

What always blew my mind, was that he made a name for himself in linguistics, and then people credited him with the same kind of expertise on fields he really didn't know anything about... It's as if they said, "Well, he's pretty smart in the field of linguistics.. so everything he says must be smart!"

In all honesty, Chomsky hasn't put out anything remotely intelligent in a LONG time... He no longer follows any kind of scientific path. He's just a crazy zealot that likes to hear himself speak. It's sad too, because he used to have a good mind... Someone needed to slap him at some point and say, "WTF? Go back to talking about stuff you understand, or make an effort to understand the stuff you're talking about."

But he just continues to get more and more extreme, because some people regard him as though he were some kind of god...

We would need to abandon such techniques because they are neither Humane nor reliable.

Since the issue of Humanity is, based on observations of your arguments, not of concern to you, let's focus on reliability.


Acquisition of intelligence is a tricky matter, especially when dealing with people that are willing to die for their cause.


Two cases: 1 assumes they are guilty... the other, not guilty.

Case: Guilty
Given our experience with these people, we know they are willing to die for their cause and to sacrifice loved ones for that same cause. The level of suffering that would have to be induced to break the will of these people would also be sufficient to alter their perceptions and experience of reality, and so any information they give us would be suspect. This assumes that they do not give us disinformation all along as a means of causing intelligence failure. How do we know that what they are telling us is true? Even with the threat of suffering, they have no reason to give us true information. They are willing to DIE... pain is nothing; they would simply look forward to dying under torture so they can go straight to Heaven.
End result: Unreliable intelligence.

Case:Not Guilty
If they are not guilty, then they will continue to deny their guilt until such time as the level of suffering becomes strong enough to alter their perceptions of reality, at which time they are likely to give us false intelligence in an effort to alleviate the suffering, regardless of which kind of suffering, mental or physical. The only kind of intelligence they can give is false because the interrogators are looking for information the subject does not have.
End Result: Unreliable Intelligence

Regardless of which case is encountered, the only intelligence that MIGHT come from the extraction by torture is unreliable and so useless. Of course if we KNEW someone was guilty, we could eliminate the risk that we might be participating in monstrosity, but when part of the interrogation is to try and figure out if someone is a part of an underground cell, we open up an entire stinking kettle of fish that brings us right back to the witch-hunts...with confessions extracted under torture and false fingering that leads to the next innocent victim. How much unnecessary suffering is enough to slake our thirst for the illusion of security in a world where such security is not truly possible?

And you still have not answered my question from before...
If YOU were the one under interrogation, and YOU were not allowed to go free until YOU talked... and knew that until you aswered their questions, the suffering(mental or physical) would get worse and worse, how would YOU feel about the process then? Who would YOU finger?

Because as things currently stand, YOU can be fingered by someone who got disappeared and YOU would disappear too. And no-one would ever hear from you again... ya know why? Because they cannot afford to have you reappear.
Even if you're innocent, you are GONE because they cannot afford to have you return to your family as a vindicated man who would turn around and sue the governement for human rights abuses.
And THAT is why this is such a dangerous path to follow in our "War".

And Cheney wants the interrogators (Inquisitors?) to have MORE freedoms... THIS is why I am horrified.
This is why YOU should be horrified too.

After reading the "voices in your head" thread and now this, I now have images of Fran Drescher trying to seduce a terrorist.

yes, I honestly believe that. If you can find me an example in history of people who were upset enough to blow civilians up ever being successfully stopped without acheiving their goals, please let me know. All thaht I can think of were either sucessful (like these listed below) or are ongoing (Shining Path, Al Quiada, et al)

Here's a couple of 20th century ones:
1914 - Terrorists kill Archduke Ferdinand in an attempt to seperate Croatia from the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, World War 1 ensues. End Result - the formation of Yugoslavia and the end of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire.

1940's Palestine - Jewish settlers (the Irgun faction) bomb English colonial authorities and Arab settlers - End result: Formation of Israel.

1956 Algeria - the FLN conducts a series of bombings on beachside cafe's in an attempt to end French colonization. End result: End of Colonization.

It seems to me that terrorism is an effective route to political change, and that combating it through force doesn't work.

Please note that observing it's past effectiveness is NOT same thing as condoning it.

Sure it does, you asked How I would deal with this mess we were in and I suggested going to the cause of the problem, not just fiddling with the surface symptoms.



Never said that, I praised the constitution, but apathy and ignorance are the greatest threat to the gift we have been given



Did Iraq belong to us or the Iraqis? Those who use whatever means they have to push out the conquerors in Iraq are identical to the scenerio of China rolling their tanks into the US, yet Bush and Co. calls them insurgents. Yes there are some extremeists who have come in to wage some holy war as well, but they weren't there before we got there. We opened the door to the suffering, and painting the people who kill innocents with the same brush as those who attack a forign occupier is misleading at best, flat out propoganda at its core.

And Saddam was secular, he didn't have a terrorist problem there. That is what we brought while "spreading freedom"



SO are you agreeing with me that the "insurgants" who use IED's against heavy armour are freedom fighters that have been too broadly painted as terrorists or insurgents?

Also, to note:



Gee, what tactics were we using there?



And there are muggers who want your wallet and your car. Should we torture everyone walking the streets when you go outside to make sure you have "security?"

And I never said abandon interrogation. However, if these "terrorists" are so guilty, why is everything done in secret? Why not try them in the US with some oversite? What is being hidden? Why is it being hidden?

I am sorry, but my trust in the jolly old fat guy in the red suit bringing me presents waned many years ago, and the US govt (Republicans and Democrats) have done nothing to earn my trust that it acts with any sense of morality. If these people are so guilty, give them attorneys, charge them with something.

With all the false positive convictions of people within the US justice system, I am hardly assured that we are getting things 100% right outside of the system, with no evidence, no trial, no defense, no word. Why is this being hidden if we are in the right so much? You would think we would want to brag about how many terrorists we have stopped and convicted, instead, it is all done in secrecy.

And now you want to torture people who are accused with no defense? The nerve of you...

And incidently, the Supreme court, in June of 2004, found that Guantanamo prisoners could bring challenges in U.S. courts and Americans held here as enemy combatants could contest their detention. So if the Govt is acting against the constitution in the Gitmo situation, what makes you think that the hidden unknown un supervised "interogations" and "detentions" in other countries is any more noble, moral, or legal?



Did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?



Where do you get your information about who the terrorists are?

Did you know the word Al Quada as applied to the "terrorist" group was given by the US govt? Did you know Bin Laden took that name as the US had already done his PR work? Did you know all those terrorists at the camps you saw with Bin Laden were paid actors (they were part of local warlord groups training for internal warfare, not international terrorists).

Bin Laden is (ar at least was until we came in and made him a hero by our slaughter of innocents) a marginal extremist hardly in step with the sensibilities of most muslims. But our wars and genocide, all the innocents that we have killed have made many people beleive he was right about us, which will certainly grow his "army." So again, I implore you, look at the disease, not the symptom.

And as a footnote, if Bin Laden (been forgotten) is such a danger and massive threat, why are we in Iraq and why is Bush saying "we are not too worried about" Bin Laden?



Orwell was a prophet and his visions are passing right in front of your eyes. He wrote a warning, others took it as a blueprint.



We need to re-examine how we deal with the world. Might doesn't always make right. I am not suggesting we pull out, merely that we play fair.

I saw a sign in a national monument once, and if we abided by the rules of that sign, we would (along with the world) be far better off:

Take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints



Lemme geuss, your best friends sisters husbands cousin knows a terrorist and he told you this?



A small marginal group, there are less people in AL Quada than at most High Schools friday night football games (or there were until we escelated things, orphaned children, and blew up civilians all over the middle east). Bin Laden was considered an "out there" extremist along the lines of Fred Phelps, by the mainstream populace. Unfortunatly, in our zeal to "spread freedom" we gave weight to the words that Bin Laden preached, giving his voice authority among a larger segment.

And don't tell me you don't realize that there are groups HERE who want to make this a Christian state, with laws stemming from a literal interpretation of the bible. What makes white mans religion different or better than brown mans in terms of political doctrine?



Not at all, and that is why I am aligned with democrats against republicans right now, knowing that they are simply the lesser of 2 evils.



No but I don't have the right to go redecorate YOUR kitchen because the color you painted your walls disgusts me.



Sure it does, you asked How I would deal with this mess we were in and I suggested going to the cause of the problem, not just fiddling with the surface symptoms.

I gave an alternative solution besides the two wrongs method that ignores the disease and "treats" only the symptom. THis issue is residual from decisions that were made before you and I were born.

We can correct it, or we can continue along our present course. And history will not be kind to us.