What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[GenSeneca]

MSNBC LIED!!! about Mancow by claiming he is a Conservative when hes a Libertarian... So by your own standards, that source is discredited...

In the second video, Hitchens never says its "excruciatingly painful", nothing even close... He does say:

"I think I sympathize a good deal more because, as a result of this very brief experience, if I do anything that gets my heart rate up and I'm breathing hard or panting, I have a slight panic sensation and I'm not able to catch my breath again."

He also has nightmares about being smothered or drowning... Those are actually pretty normal dreams to have, it would be abnormal if you'd never had such a dream.

 

[top gun]

MSNBC LIED!!! about Mancow by claiming he is a Conservative when hes a Libertarian... So by your own standards, that source is discredited...

In the second video, Hitchens never says its "excruciatingly painful", nothing even close... He does say:

"I think I sympathize a good deal more because, as a result of this very brief experience, if I do anything that gets my heart rate up and I'm breathing hard or panting, I have a slight panic sensation and I'm not able to catch my breath again."

He also has nightmares about being smothered or drowning... Those are actually pretty normal dreams to have, it would be abnormal if you'd never had such a dream.

First off if you've ever listened to Mancow on the radio as I have you'd know he's only 2 Oxcycotins and a Dominican minor from being Druggie Limbaugh in his hate for anything even remotely Progressive.

Secondly you might have noticed these guys could only stand it like 6 freakin' seconds. The helpless, bound prisoners we TORTURED couldn't call it off after 6 seconds... or any length of time. And some were water suffocated over 130 times.

That's pain... that's TORTURE. Bask in it if you like... just admit the Nazis and the Japanese are your homeboys.

 

[GenSeneca]

Top Gun,

You said waterboarding was: "excruciatingly painful"

You've not been able to back that up... LIAR!!!

By your own standards... you have lost.

 

[top gun]

Top Gun,

You said waterboarding was: "excruciatingly painful"

You've not been able to back that up... LIAR!!!

By your own standards... you have lost.

Well give me the address to ye old trailer park and I'll come right on over and prove it to ya!

I could post 100 pages of people saying it's extremely painful (as any thinking person could figure out... it's DROWNING!!) and you'd still love it!

Not only is it painful but it puts the body in such a state of shock that any underlying condition could immediately be set off. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE DOCTORS PRESENT! They don't do that with normal interrogations... because they're NOT dangerous to a persons health.

But I can't actually make you feel how it feels over the internet... ya got me there.

 

[BigRob]

Rob you must kinda realize you went all the way around the world to just say... our word in an official international agreement means nothing... worthless... we do whatever we want no matter what we promise.

Signing a non-binding declaration is not really the same as promising to do anything. If you "declare" that poverty is a bad thing, it does not mean you are going to actually do anything about it. However if you declare that poverty is a bad thing and then sign a contract stating you will give 10% of your income to fight it, that creates a different situation.

The situation we are faced with in regards to our international agreements are basically a "declaration" and not an actually contract.

You put America right in line with someone like North Korea switching gears at their leisure on nuclear weapons. You guys constantly want to speak up for making the US look like any other rouge nation. Honestly... it really makes me more sad than mad when I think about it.

The United States has always negotiated in this manner in terms of binding international agreements. In terms of non-binding declarations that becomes less important.

However, it is a different situation with North Korea since North Korea has violated legally binding Security Council resolutions, whereas if anything the United States has violated a non-binding declaration.

Here's a scenario for you. A couple in the process of a divorce sit down to an official arbitration hearing before going to trial. The couple makes concessions to each other and they hammer out and officially agree to a reasonable, just & fair agreement.

Then the woman (that's George Bush in this scenario) finds out that her soon to be ex-husband just met someone he kinda likes. So the tantrum starts and all deals are off because she wants to be an irrational, stupid, vindictive b1tch.

I think a better example to capture what is happening with the law here is to think of it as a non-binding arbitration. In that case when either party decides they do not like the deal they got they can call off the entire thing.

Wrong is wrong. My word means something to me.

As it does with me. But I think this is exactly the reason why the United States made sure that it never actually gave its word in any legal sense in this regard. Given that laws are the framework of our society, I think this amounts to the US never having given its word on this particular issue.

Well there's really not much. Bush/Cheney are only getting away with TORTURING bound, defenseless detainees by word smithing, semantics, lying, and breaking our international agreements. We can go back & forth on this for another 50 pages but nothing will change... that's simply just the plain truth of it all.

Again, we broke none of our international legally binding agreements.

I think it's important to listen to the pro-torture sides reasoning... I want to be fair enough to consider everything... I don't want to miss something I haven't considered.

And you present a straight forward and non-insulting delivery of your understanding and feelings on the matter.

I'll convince you one of these days.

Except for that "helping the poor story" that one needs more work to find that parable my friend!

Haha yes well, that is what hunger does.

Oh I wasn't worried about that. Seems to me you're probably very qualified for about anything you want to do. I'm more worried about her outspoken husband bringing her company into internet neon lights on a political forum.

I appreciate the vote of confidence.

The founder & CEO who's nationally known... is a Republican!

His being a Republican clearly explains why the company is so successful.

 

[GenSeneca]

I could post 100 pages of people saying it's extremely painful

And you'd still be a LIAR!!! because your original statement was that waterboarding was "excruciatingly painful".

Dr. Who asked for a source that verified your statement, you still haven't given him so much as one source that says its "excruciatingly painful".

LOL, That video of Ventura is PRICELESS!!!

He thinks 9/11 was an inside job!!!

No wonder you like the guy... You're both 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you both think waterboarding is torture and you both want Bush and Cheney prosecuted for war crimes.

 

[Dr.Who]

We are not pro-torture... We simply disagree that waterboarding is torture.

From a legal standpoint I do not think that waterboarding meets the current definition of torture.

But from a common sense standpoint it clearly is torture.

And yet I still think that the choice to use waterboarding is better than the choice to have let the LA terror plot to have gone off without being thwarted. Waterboarding was wrong but it was less wrong than not doing it.

If we begin to talk about soldiers instead of terrorists then a case can be made that not doing it is less wrong than doing it. And in the case of American citizens the case can be made that doing it wrong and not doing it is right.

My begrudging acceptance of waterboarding in this instance* does not make me pro-torture in any sense that I want to see it happen but it is also too strong to say that I am definitely not pro-torture. Just like knowing if the technique is legally torture is kind of grey a characterization based on a grey acceptance of it is grey too.

*
on non citizens
on those without geneva agreements
on terrorists
who are high level terrorists
rarely
after other techniques have been tried
without pain
without discomfort of any more than 20 seconds
without physical damage
with a presidential order
with a doctor present
with approval of congress and both parties
And the three or four other restrictions I have forgotten

 

[top gun]

Signing a non-binding declaration is not really the same as promising to do anything. If you "declare" that poverty is a bad thing, it does not mean you are going to actually do anything about it. However if you declare that poverty is a bad thing and then sign a contract stating you will give 10% of your income to fight it, that creates a different situation.
The situation we are faced with in regards to our international agreements are basically a "declaration" and not an actually contract.
The United States has always negotiated in this manner in terms of binding international agreements. In terms of non-binding declarations that becomes less important.
However, it is a different situation with North Korea since North Korea has violated legally binding Security Council resolutions, whereas if anything the United States has violated a non-binding declaration.
I think a better example to capture what is happening with the law here is to think of it as a non-binding arbitration. In that case when either party decides they do not like the deal they got they can call off the entire thing.
As it does with me. But I think this is exactly the reason why the United States made sure that it never actually gave its word in any legal sense in this regard. Given that laws are the framework of our society, I think this amounts to the US never having given its word on this particular issue.
Again, we broke none of our international legally binding agreements.

I put all of this together because it's just one big circle. I understand your position. It's wrong... both morally and from any reasonable persons interpretation of what ones word in a formal agreement is to stand for... but I understand your position fully.

I'm against TORTURING bound, helpless prisoners and you are not. That's it.

I believe when we give our own free will word in an official international agreement... legally enforceable or not we keep it. That's it.

I believe if we help prosecute and even give the death penalty to people in other countries because they waterboarded (any type of water suffocation technique) then we are obligated not to turn around and do it ourselves because we feel we're allowed to do whatever we want. That's it.

Bush & Cheney are gone now and the TORTURE has stopped thank God. I'm kinda seein' this topic as exhaused... both positions have been clearly laid out multiple times.

 

[top gun]

And you'd still be a LIAR!!! because your original statement was that waterboarding was "excruciatingly painful".

Dr. Who asked for a source that verified your statement, you still haven't given him so much as one source that says its "excruciatingly painful".

First off... it doesn't make someone a liar because they can't prove something to somebody over the internet. If I came to your house with a bucket of water and a hose I could prove it to you in say 6 seconds.

Secondly... the proof is one of general everyday knowledge and common sense. Everyone knows water suffocation (drowning) is painful. All waterboarding is... is force feeding drowning.

Now come on... I know your not bent toward being reasonable but drowning does hurt. It's like arguing that if you grow really long fingernails and then jam them in an electrical outlet it really won't hurt a lot. Common sense my friend... just good old fashion common sense.

And I've already posted several pieces now where people that have went through it say it was so bad they could only stand it for like 6 seconds. Multiple that by a lot of time per dose and then times that by some over 130 secissions. Come on buddy think...

LOL, That video of Ventura is PRICELESS!!!

Well what was i thinking? I mean he's only an ex-Navy Seal that's been waterboarded in training... you are obviously more knowledgeable... NOT!

Navy SEAL Jesse Ventura volunteers to waterboard Cheney.

One of the most repeated lines from conservatives in the debate over interrogations is that waterboarding is not torture because it is performed on U.S. troops as part of training. Yesterday on CNN’s Larry King Live, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura — a former Navy SEAL who has been waterboarded — poured cold water on this talking point, saying that waterboarding is in fact “drowning.” Ventura said he could waterboard Vice President Cheney and get him to admit to anything:

KING: You were a Navy SEAL.

VENTURA: That’s right. I was water boarded, so I know — at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence — every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.

KING: What was it like?

VENTURA: It’s drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you — I’ll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

 

[GenSeneca]

First off... it doesn't make someone a liar because they can't prove something to somebody over the internet.

You can't prove it because its purely opinion. The term "excruciating pain" is entirely subjective, you cannot quantify it... Same with torture... There is no blanket definition that you can apply that would eliminate the question of what is and is not torture... Torture is a concept that's subject to the opinion of the individual.

I had a toothache once that put me in "excruciating pain", I also amost drowned once... Both were incredibly unpleasent experiences that I would not want to repeat but neither were torture. That same toothache in someone elses head may not have been to them "excruciating pain", becuase its entirely subjective to the individual.

If I came to your house with a bucket of water and a hose I could prove it to you in say 6 seconds.

Top Gun is threatening to waterboard me!!! Quick, someone send this to the FBI... We've gotta keep an eye on these Left-Wing-Extremists... they are likely to create a "Man Caused Disaster"

For someone who claims waterboarding is torture, we shouldn't ever do it and those who do waterboard others should be tried as war criminals... you certainly are eager to waterboard those you disagree with.

But seriously... If my being waterboarded would save the lives of American troops and/or civilians by preventing the next 9/11, I'd gladly put myself through the "torture" of being waterboarded to do so... But since I'm not a terrorist (or whatever fluffy-bunny name you've given those responsible for creating man-caused-disasters), since I'm not one of those... I don't have to be worried about being waterboarded.

Secondly... the proof is one of general everyday knowledge and common sense. Everyone knows water suffocation (drowning) is painful. All waterboarding is... is force feeding drowning.

This is actually a common fallacy... "Everyone knows" is an example of Argumentum ad populum, appeal to the people: in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."

Now come on... I know your not bent toward being reasonable but drowning does hurt.

Actually I'm very reasonable... You're the one who is being unreasonable by demanding that everyone stop thinking for themselves and agree with your position. As Patton used to say, "If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking."

I do agree that waterboarding is absolutely terrifying... but it is not "excruciatingly painful" and its far more humane than whatever the people we send to other countries though rendition are being subject to.

And I've already posted several pieces now where people that have went through it say it was so bad they could only stand it for like 6 seconds.

This is another fallacy of logic, no matter how many you post. Appeal to Authority: a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

There are just as many people who claim its not torture but I don't post those because it would be fallacious of me to do so. Therefore, its down to our personal opinion...

Multiple that by a lot of time per dose and then times that by some over 130 secissions.

If the fact that we only waterboarded 3 senior members of Al Qaeda has no bearing on the issue, then the frequency by which we subjected them to waterboarding also bears no importance. If quantity doesn't count on the one hand, then it doesn't count on the other.

Come on buddy think...

Well what was i thinking? I mean he's only an ex-Navy Seal that's been waterboarded in training... you are obviously more knowledgeable...

Being waterboarded is probably the most 'piss your pants' terrifying interrogation technique we could ever conceive of using but it is not "excruciatingly painful"...

Yesterday on CNN’s Larry King Live, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura — a former Navy SEAL who has been waterboarded — poured cold water on this talking point, saying that waterboarding is in fact “drowning.”

Ventura said it was "drowning"... What Ventura never says in King's fallacious appeal to authority segment.... is that waterboarding is "excruciatingly painful"... which was the claim you made to Dr. Who...

------

We disagree that waterboarding is torture. I think everyone else understands that, yet you continue to argue as if the topic were: "Is Waterboarding Torture?"... when you know that is not the topic...

You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't think you're weak on terrorists for holding your position and you shouldn't think I'm "Pro-Torture" for holding mine. We disagree on one specific technique but agree on nearly all the others...

If you could just agree to disagree on that specific technique, which was abandoned in 2005, then we could move on and discuss the actual topic... Namely, what specific techniques you would approve for use in the cases of 1-A suspects after they have gone through the other 5 levels of interrogation and remain uncooperative.

On the one hand... You said we should stay inside the bounds of the GC...

On the other hand... You said our interrogators should be allowed to have physical contact with the suspects... which is strictly forbidden by the GC.

I find it much more interesting discussing the actual topic than going back and forth on the topic you wish this thread were about.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;97507]You can't prove it because its purely opinion. The term "excruciating pain" is entirely subjective, you cannot quantify it... Same with torture... There is no blanket definition that you can apply that would eliminate the question of what is and is not torture... Torture is a concept that's subject to the opinion of the individual.

I had a toothache once that put me in "excruciating pain", I also amost drowned once... Both were incredibly unpleasent experiences that I would not want to repeat but neither were torture. That same toothache in someone elses head may not have been to them "excruciating pain", becuase its entirely subjective to the individual.

The fact is that purposely inflicting physical pain on someone who is a bound, defenseless detainee is wrong. The loophole you choose could go up to ANYTHING except death... and that on it's face is ridiculous.
America long ago agreed internationally that waterboarding was TORTURE. That's obviously evidence enough right there.

Top Gun is threatening to waterboard me!!! Quick, someone send this to the FBI... We've gotta keep an eye on these Left-Wing-Extremists... they are likely to create a "Man Caused Disaster"

Now there you go again! You already have the I'm a HUGE liar banner hanging over your head... please don't build on it I said the way to prove waterboarding is TORTURE is to simple allow someone to do it to you. And I volunterred. Offer still stands by the way.

For someone who claims waterboarding is torture, we shouldn't ever do it and those who do waterboard others should be tried as war criminals... you certainly are eager to waterboard those you disagree with.

There's no "eager" to it. First I already know that you know it's causes severe pain and suffering... and you're not that brave either.

This is actually a common fallacy... "Everyone knows" is an example of Argumentum ad populum, appeal to the people: in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."

Well let's leave you out of it and just say even borderline intellegent people know DROWNING is painfull.

Actually I'm very reasonable... You're the one who is being unreasonable by demanding that everyone stop thinking for themselves and agree with your position. As Patton used to say, "If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking."

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying it's TORTURE, it's wrong, and if people act like that they should be prosecuted. You can "think" however you like.

This is another fallacy of logic, no matter how many you post. Appeal to Authority: a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

When I get sick I go to a doctor because he is a better authority than a lay person. Same thing here with an ex-Navy Seal that's actually been through the training.

This may be why your economic posts are so bad. In your mind anyone with experience in the field is automatically wrong and you look for a gut response on political dogma.

Being waterboarded is probably the most 'piss your pants' terrifying interrogation technique we could ever conceive of using but it is not "excruciatingly painful"...

You're wrong... prove it?

Ventura said it was "drowning"... What Ventura never says in King's fallacious appeal to authority segment.... is that waterboarding is "excruciatingly painful"... which was the claim you made to Dr. Who...

I've personally known a handful of people over may 52 years that have almost drowned, one I talk to almost every day. I had a cousin that actually did drown. Saying it's not painful just show how pitifully ignorant you are.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't think you're weak on terrorists for holding your position and you shouldn't think I'm "Pro-Torture" for holding mine. We disagree on one specific technique but agree on nearly all the others...

If you could just agree to disagree on that specific technique, which was abandoned in 2005, then we could move on and discuss the actual topic... Namely, what specific techniques you would approve for use in the cases of 1-A suspects after they have gone through the other 5 levels of interrogation and remain uncooperative.

Yes... yours is ridiculous and mine is rational. You are PRO-TORTURE... just admit it and move on.

On the one hand... You said we should stay inside the bounds of the GC...

On the other hand... You said our interrogators should be allowed to have physical contact with the suspects... which is strictly forbidden by the GC.

I find it much more interesting discussing the actual topic than going back and forth on the topic you wish this thread were about.

There you go yet again crunching things I said to different questions into one answer... you know when you do that knowingly that's... well... LYING AGAIN! Don't do that it makes you look weak.

What I've said very clearly is I think that these detainees... the ones we've been talking about all along... should have been treated under Geneva Convention standards regardless of what anyone wants to call them.

I later said that I'd have no "personal" problem with the rules being changed to where their could be some limited physical contact such as pushing someone up against a wall or an opened hand slap across the face.

That would be my acceptable change. You went from civilized skilled & firm interrogator to TORTURER by your leap to water suffocating someone. This is where we differ... I'm against TORTURE & TORTURERS. I'm sorry that's your chosen base camp... I really am.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm a HUGE liar

Yes, yes you are... Must be taking Obama's meds:

Perhaps you'd like to stop lying long enough to take a crack at the actual topic, which still is:

What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Here's the scenario: You have a 1-A suspect who's been through the other 5 levels of interrogation and remains uncooperative... Name just ONE specific interrogation technique you would approve for use on that suspect to garner information.

 

[Butercupp]

Butercupp,
They did have exactly this before the SCOTUS ruling... do you agree or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that detainees should now be given trials in civilian courts?

No, Military.

We did not hand out death sentences, or other forms of punishment, to the detainees that we tried in our military tribunals... the trial (tribunal) was to determine whether or not they posed a threat to US or Coalition forces. If they were determined to not pose a threat, they were released, if they did, they were held indefinitely but given regular reviews, if it wasn't clear, they would be held but quickly reviewed upon receiving new information on the subject.

It is my understanding that the detainees in Gitmo were not being given trials, at least not all of them, and were being punished/tortured. Am I wrong?

This is interesting... You want military courts to hear their cases but not until after the cessation of hostilities? We would have been holding thousands of innocent people that have since been released if we did what you suggest.

Let me clarify, I believe we should hold trials during the war and if they are innocent set them free. I think I was trying to justify in my head the thought that some of the detainees would turn against us because of their experience in Gitmo. But, if we treated them fairly in the first place they would not be a threat, theoretically.

Now I have a hypothetical scenario for you to consider. We have a suspect who's been screened to fit the highest priority, Level 1-A. He's been through all the interrogation techniques you've suggested and remains completely uncooperative. The field manual does not allow for any physical contact between the interrogator and his subject, so up to now the subject has received no harsher an interrogation than the average street thug would at the local police department.

Do you think we should allow the interrogator to go beyond the manual and have physical contact with the subject?

Keeping the answer you gave to the previous question in mind, what would be the most extreme interrogation technique you would approve for use on the subject? Please be at least as specific as you were for the Reid summary.

They are only principals if you stand by them while inconvenient. I would not resort to torture to obtain the information. I am assuming if you have proof they are an A-1 threat you have enough evidence to put them away for life. If prison for life isn't enough motivation for them to speak I suppose we will have to get the information a different way.

 

[BigRob]

It is my understanding that the detainees in Gitmo were not being given trials, at least not all of them, and were being punished/tortured. Am I wrong?

They were not, and still are not. However the idea that they were all being "punished and tortured" is mistaken.

Let me clarify, I believe we should hold trials during the war and if they are innocent set them free. I think I was trying to justify in my head the thought that some of the detainees would turn against us because of their experience in Gitmo. But, if we treated them fairly in the first place they would not be a threat, theoretically.

If by treat them "fairly" you mean give them POW status they would never be entitled to a trial. Would that be fair? Further, many (with a few exceptions) of those we captured and continue to hold hated us long before they ever got to GITMO.

They are only principals if you stand by them while inconvenient. I would not resort to torture to obtain the information. I am assuming if you have proof they are an A-1 threat you have enough evidence to put them away for life. If prison for life isn't enough motivation for them to speak I suppose we will have to get the information a different way.

You do not always have the evidence in a clear cut manner as you assume. Further, prison for life is not a motivation for radical religious fanatics to speak. These are people who willingly blow themselves up for the cause, saying "prison for life" to them is not going to matter.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca

Originally Posted by top gun
I'm a HUGE liar

Yes, yes you are... Must be taking Obama's meds:

This is why you have zero credibility. When you aren't intentionally misquoting people because you're such a looser & have no substantive arguements... you're cutting and pasting your words into other people quotes... what a looser you are my friend.

Let's see how you look in a made up quote like that...

My girlfriend is a sheep

REALLY! I mean we all suspected but really!

You're pathetic...