What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Pandora]

I'll bet you didn't see anything about waterboarding being OK, nor about stress positions, nor about inducing hypothermia. I know you didn't see anything about the more severe forms of torture that were said to not be authorized by the high officials.

No wonder we're seeing red herrings about abortion that have nothing to do with the question of the spectacle of a western democracy, a voice for human rights, engaging in torturing prisoners, then attempting to justify it by not labeling them as POW, or as anything else that confers any degree of humanity on said prisoners. Did I see the phrase "non persons" above? Well, if they're "non persons", that makes them not human, doesn't it? Aren't there rules about cruelty to animals as well?

If some yahoo were found waterboarding dogs, would he be prosecuted?

Are the prisoners less than animals?

No I did not see anything you can do, I just saw another frakin list of crap you cant do. Still no one who is against what is done is saying what we can do. I am ready to give up!

what ever these detainees are they are for sure Humans and persons. I dont buy into that some of us are not persons stuff. But I would like to know more about what people are willing to do rather than just hearing how they dont like what has been done.

 

[Pandora]

OK, fair enough. Let's start a list.

I say it's OK to lie to the prisoners, the way cops sometimes lie to suspects to get them to open up.

It's OK to play good cop, bad cop.

It's OK to keep asking the same question over and over until the suspect finally forgets what lies he already told.

OK, you add something, or attack one of mine.

Everything on that list is good, my question though is this.

Is it enough to get vital information from someone who knows about a planned attack on an American city? if it is then great but if its not what more must we do and stay within the law and a decent moral code.

 

[top gun]

The holy rollers donate far more time and money to help just those people than any other group in America. They also run more of the homes for disabled, hospitals, and orphanages than any other group.

And contrary to popular belief they are not all that interested in making religious mores into law. Generally they just want recognition of the the common sense proposal that killing a living human is murder.

You're entitled to your opinion. And of course there are good religious based groups out there. In fact my favorite little old Aunt is part of one small local group that does do good.

But the fact is on the grand scale it's ALWAYS Conservatives who love to "talk" religious values trying every single trick in the books to cut or eliminate funding for ADC, food stamps, children's healthcare, head start, homeless shelters... and the list goes on & on & on.

And the Far Right radical religious wing is not only dangerous... they are unAmerican. They justify killing doctors and bombing women's clinics.

And it's not hard to build up disdain for the snake oil salesmen Evangelists either. They con & bilk & drain bank accounts and often hurt people who can least afford it like the ill & elderly.

America is a land where freedom of choice and freedom both, of and from religion is so very important.

We see the damage to peoples lives and especially women everyday with other fanatic fundamentalist religious groups like the Taliban and say... but extreme Christians could never act like that.

BULL SH1T!!!

We're always just one step away from a David Koresh or a Jim Jones. And there are many more who want an American Theocracy.

Well known Evangelists like the Reverend Hagee and Reverend Ron Parsley are far more dangerous to Americans individual liberties than even the overtly dangerous ones because they've already tasted power through their use of slick fear mongering pulpit telemarketing campaigns.

As a father of 2 daughters I'm perfectly fine and in full support of letting each individual woman decide what goes on inside her own body. And no one has to choose an abortion.

But I do know that it definitely should not up to me... or you... or the government to decide. Not only is it wrong to try a legislate that someone be a government forced incubator... it physically cannot be done.

In the end it is ALWAYS totally up to the woman regardless. The only question is should we endanger women's lives by withholding safe sterile medical care.

Not this FATHER... HELL NO!

 

[top gun]

If its so easy to understand, why do you STILL not get it?

You STILL haven't defined your concept of "torture" in terms of acceptable, much less applicable, techniques. There must be a line of demarcation and to make that line clear, the exact proceedures, directly on either side of the "torture" line, must be named so as to be crystal clear.

"everything up to the point of torture" is so broad, NAFTA could build their superhighway there... Its so vauge, I can see the mirrors thought he smoke... Not since Larry Craig has anyone taken such a wide stance.... Its precisely that type of psuedo-intellecutal-feel-good-psycho-babble, which was passed off as policy, that got us to this point in the first place.

But that's the point isn't it? Make meaningless but politically correct statements in order to feel good about yourselves without actually coming to terms with reality. Then smugly pat each other on the back while vilifying everyone who questions you, or asks for clarification, as being immoral and pro-torture.

I'm asking you to take a stand on a clear line and define what's directly on either side of that line. You, and others like you, have chosen a very blurry line to "stand" on by providing obvious, extreme examples far away from the line you claim to be standing on: Shooting someone in the kneecaps is torture but politely questioning them is not. Its the exact proceedures on either side of the line you claim to stand on that I want to hear identified, not the proceedures at either end of the spectrum that everyone already agrees with.

You bring up airport restroom gay stall sex Republican Larry Craig as a justification for the attempted drowning of someone by forcing stuff down their throat... How utterly apropos...

I know it's extremely hard to run cover for Bush and be honest at the same time... but let's try.

If I come over to your house and I grab you by the hair and stuff your head in the toilet and hold you under water until you pass out and then pull you out just so you don't die... just to do it again and again and again... to get information out of you that you may or may not even have... THAT'S TORTURE PLAIN & SIMPLE no matter how slick you try to spin it my friend! I'm physically hurting you to get information.

It's no different than the Viet Cong shoving bamboo sticks up under our GI's fingernails... they didn't die from that either... still torture!

But hey talk big & bold if ya like.

Bush & Cheney are right on the cusp of being brought up on charges. Up till now President Obama has been trying to throw water on the idea and just move forward.

But I'd love for the country and the world to see the under oath testimony myself. Maybe we'll all get the chance to see a Bush/Cheney defense with all the evidence out on the table...

 

[BigRob]

But the fact is on the grand scale it's ALWAYS Conservatives who love to "talk" religious values trying every single trick in the books to cut or eliminate funding for ADC, food stamps, children's healthcare, head start, homeless shelters... and the list goes on & on & on.

Conservatives are not against helping poor people. What they are against is being ordered by the government to do so in a non-efficient way. You will find most conservatives will oppose government handing out food stamps forever, but will gladly give money to charities to take care of the less fortunate or buy a guy a meal on the street if he looks like he needs one. It is not the principle of helping people that we oppose, it is the manner that it is done.

And the Far Right radical religious wing is not only dangerous... they are unAmerican. They justify killing doctors and bombing women's clinics.

The other side of the argument here (and not to justify bombing abortion clinics because that is wrong) is that far left types justify the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. You can buy into that or not, but you can at least understand the other point of view.

And it's not hard to build up disdain for the snake oil salesmen Evangelists either. They con & bilk & drain bank accounts and often hurt people who can least afford it like the ill & elderly.

I agree, there are some (some) Evangelists who are out for nothing but money. However, as you say, people can choose to donate to them or not, so I have little sympathy if someone donates to them and could not afford it.

America is a land where freedom of choice and freedom both, of and from religion is so very important.

I will give you freedom of religion, but I do not see freedom of choice anywhere in the Constitution. All I do see is a court case where the Justices could not even agree where it could be interpreted from. In fact they even point out that "maybe" it comes from this Amendment.

We see the damage to peoples lives and especially women everyday with other fanatic fundamentalist religious groups like the Taliban and say... but extreme Christians could never act like that.

BULL SH1T!!!

All religions will have their bad seeds. It does no more to discredit the religion that a country having a bad seed does to discredit a country.

We're always just one step away from a David Koresh or a Jim Jones. And there are many more who want an American Theocracy.

There are also millions who are religious and have no desire to see either of those. I think your characterization is bias and misguided.

Well known Evangelists like the Reverend Hagee and Reverend Ron Parsley are far more dangerous to Americans individual liberties than even the overtly dangerous ones because they've already tasted power through their use of slick fear mongering pulpit telemarketing campaigns.

If people choose to follow them (and you argue we have freedom of choice here) why is that a bad thing? Not that I like the people, but it is not my place to tell someone they cannot listen to them.

As a father of 2 daughters I'm perfectly fine and in full support of letting each individual woman decide what goes on inside her own body. And no one has to choose an abortion.

But I do know that it definitely should not up to me... or you... or the government to decide.

If you believe that life begins at conception as millions do, then it is the place of the government to legislate away the idea that you can kill life because it is not born yet. After all, I would say it is codified in law pretty clearly that we have the right to life (by the government).

In the end it is ALWAYS totally up to the woman regardless. The only question is should we endanger women's lives by withholding safe sterile medical care.

Not this FATHER... HELL NO! [/COLOR]

The only way I would ever agree to that (and I never will because I find abortion ridiculous) is if the woman got pregnant herself. Other than that, I think it is a disgrace that the father has no say in the matter.

 

[GenSeneca]

You bring up airport restroom gay stall sex Republican Larry Craig as a justification for the attempted drowning of someone by forcing stuff down their throat...

Please congratulate Top Guns on yet another fallacy filled fabrication of fraudulent fiction:
The whole thing is centered around an ad hominem attack. His claim that I was attempting to justify the use of waterboarding is maliciously fallacious... which reveals his accusation as being merely a Straw Man argument, meant to distract others from what I was actually saying...

I asked him to clarify his position on "torture" but instead of clarifying his position as requested, he lashed out... the intellectually bankrupt have a tendency to react that way.

I know it's extremely hard to run cover for Bush and be honest at the same time... but let's try.

Here Top Gun continued his straw man, threw in an appeal to spite and topped it all off with a Red herring... all in one sentence. I guess Top Gun doesn't know the difference between using a string of fallacies and being "honest".

Also notice he still didn't attempt to clarify his position but instead continued to mis-characterize mine. He offered no specifics as to interrogation techniques that were on either side of "everything up to the point of torture".

If interrogation has a clear "point", beyond which it becomes "torture", then Top Gun must have some idea of where that point can be found among potential interrogation techniques... Of course, if he doesn't have a clear "point", but a blurry splotch and a general conception, his reaction would be exactly what he offered - Nothing of value.

 

[BigRob]

If I come over to your house and I grab you by the hair and stuff your head in the toilet and hold you under water until you pass out and then pull you out just so you don't die... just to do it again and again and again... to get information out of you that you may or may not even have... THAT'S TORTURE PLAIN & SIMPLE no matter how slick you try to spin it my friend! I'm physically hurting you to get information.

This is not how waterboarding works... but to counterpoint this. If you did this and it was not illegal, you certainly would not be put on trial, which is what the Obama White House is currently thinking about doing.

It's no different than the Viet Cong shoving bamboo sticks up under our GI's fingernails... they didn't die from that either... still torture!

Legally, it is very different. For multiple reasons.

But hey talk big & bold if ya like.

Bush & Cheney are right on the cusp of being brought up on charges. Up till now President Obama has been trying to throw water on the idea and just move forward.

What law did they break? If Obama does allow these trials to go on, his domestic agenda is officially dead, and he will preside over the most partisan country in history.

But I'd love for the country and the world to see the under oath testimony myself. Maybe we'll all get the chance to see a Bush/Cheney defense with all the evidence out on the table...

The only possible outcome of this is a disaster for Obama. Which is why should any actual trial occur (or any meaningful Congressional hearings) he is going to put an end to it, or issue some pardons.

Remember, according to the National Security Act the White House has to brief Congress on matters like this. The Bush White House did (which included the leadership of the Democrats as well). The political fall out for the Democrats is going to be huge as well if they go forward with this.

You can see an example of this by even Senator Reid saying he has no real desire to see anything occur. Not only does it doom President Obama's domestic agenda, but it is going to kill the Democratic leadership as well politically.

 

[GenSeneca]

Big Rob,

Top Gun knows the topic:

What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

His responses are simply Red Herrings: an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue and is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

This is the closest Top Gun has come to answering the question:
"everything up to the point of torture"
Please help me to keep him on topic by finding out exactly where that "point" can be found.

Isn't there a logical expectation that he could name a specific technique close to torture on one side of his "point", with another specific technique that is just over the line of torture on the other?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

OK, fair enough. Let's start a list.

I say it's OK to lie to the prisoners, the way cops sometimes lie to suspects to get them to open up.

It's OK to play good cop, bad cop.

It's OK to keep asking the same question over and over until the suspect finally forgets what lies he already told.

OK, you add something, or attack one of mine.

I'll post additional options if I may:

Extreme temperature controls: but the limitations will be no more then 115º for 4 hours and no less then 32° for 4 hours {during the extreme cold temperatures the prisoners will be allowed free movement if they so desire but they will only be allowed in either extremes just layer of clothing and a regular meal before the 4 hours of weather stress is applied.

Loud obnoxious music: Rosanne Barr sings the National Anthem at full blast on a continual recording for 8 hours straight!
While this is being played at the fullest decibels the prisoner will be strapped into a chair with a 'bright light' shining in their face {hey it worked for the untouchables} and the room is kept at 115°.

Hey, this could be rather entertaining!!!

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, fair enough. Let's start a list.

I say it's OK to lie to the prisoners, the way cops sometimes lie to suspects to get them to open up.

It's OK to play good cop, bad cop.

It's OK to keep asking the same question over and over until the suspect finally forgets what lies he already told.

OK, you add something, or attack one of mine.

While I do appreciate you contributing and hope you continue, you have begun (as did Bunz) at the non-torture extreme:

Good cop-bad cop routine
pitting one party against the other
shouting

Now if I remember your other comments correctly, I believe you, Bunz and others all agree with Top Gun that we should do:"everything up to the point of torture"

As I've stated, in order for that "point" to exist, there must be some specific techniques you can designate as being directly on either side of that "point". This point is OK, but at this next point over, and beyond, it becomes torture.

Would anyone here consider Good Cop Bad Cop, Lying, shouting or playing the interrogated off one another as being anywhere close to that point of torture? I think not... but at least we are working our way toward that "point" where you recognize interrogation as becoming torture.

If you want to continue working from the extreme "non-torture" side and work your way to the "point" where it becomes torture, the list could be quite long and take some time to compile... Which is fine with me, so long as we get there.

However, if you think about (or already know) where your "point" is and pick two techniques, one on either side, then the process will go much faster. The nature of these two techniques being so close to that "point" will inevitably mean that what you consider acceptable, others will consider torture and vice versa. That's where the real conversation about interrogation vs. torture will begin, on either side of that elusive "point" where interrogation truly becomes torture.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'll post additional options if I may:

Extreme temperature controls:

Loud obnoxious music:

Hey, this could be rather entertaining!!!

Excellent additions! Thank you.

Forgive me for snipping them but I think you now understand the purpose of my thread was never to defend torture...

The list is finally getting closer to the "event horizon", the point at which interrogation becomes torture.

ASPCA4EVER, I hope you continue to contribute in the same spirit, understanding of the topic and enthusiasm that you demonstrated above.

 

[Pandora]

I'll post additional options if I may:

Extreme temperature controls: but the limitations will be no more then 115º for 4 hours and no less then 32° for 4 hours {during the extreme cold temperatures the prisoners will be allowed free movement if they so desire but they will only be allowed in either extremes just layer of clothing and a regular meal before the 4 hours of weather stress is applied.

Loud obnoxious music: Rosanne Barr sings the National Anthem at full blast on a continual recording for 8 hours straight!
While this is being played at the fullest decibels the prisoner will be strapped into a chair with a 'bright light' shining in their face {hey it worked for the untouchables} and the room is kept at 115°.

Hey, this could be rather entertaining!!!

I think the temp thing could make someone talk. I don’t know though if that could be dangerous to go from hot to cold so maybe hot weather to normal for a day or so and then cold ? But it’s a great idea.

The loud music is a good one too. I wonder though about the religion stuff. Muslims are not allowed to listen to musical instruments, it’s against their religion. I don’t feel right about messing with people’s religion. But you could do Ben Stein reading a book for hours on end and Rosanne Barr singing without the music in the background.

Once or twice of either of these things wouldn’t make them talk but days or weeks of it could.

Great ideas! Are they legal does anyone know ?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I'll post additional options if I may:

Extreme temperature controls: but the limitations will be no more then 115º for 4 hours and no less then 32° for 4 hours {during the extreme cold temperatures the prisoners will be allowed free movement if they so desire but they will only be allowed in either extremes just layer of clothing and a regular meal before the 4 hours of weather stress is applied.

Loud obnoxious music: Rosanne Barr sings the National Anthem at full blast on a continual recording for 8 hours straight!
While this is being played at the fullest decibels the prisoner will be strapped into a chair with a 'bright light' shining in their face {hey it worked for the untouchables} and the room is kept at 115°.

Hey, this could be rather entertaining!!!

Excellent additions! Thank you.

Forgive me for snipping them but I think you now understand the purpose of my thread was never to defend torture...

The list is finally getting closer to the "event horizon", the point at which interrogation becomes torture.

ASPCA4EVER, I hope you continue to contribute in the same spirit, understanding of the topic and enthusiasm that you demonstrated above.

Man, you snipped out the best part...ROSEANNE BARR screaming the National Anthem for 8 hours...they would 'CRACK' in under 4 hours or less...I lay bets on it...LMAO
Hey, it all takes a while to get up to speed and to understand everyone's uniquely/nuances/tongue-in-cheek posts but it's starting to feel somewhat readable/normal...but then again we {all of us tend to take some topics really far to seriously...like what we say is really/truly going to matter in the huge spectrum of the cosmos!!!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I think the temp thing could make someone talk. I don’t know though if that could be dangerous to go from hot to cold so maybe hot weather to normal for a day or so and then cold ? But it’s a great idea.

The loud music is a good one too. I wonder though about the religion stuff. Muslims are not allowed to listen to musical instruments, it’s against their religion. I don’t feel right about messing with people’s religion. But you could do Ben Stein reading a book for hours on end and Rosanne Barr singing without the music in the background.

Once or twice of either of these things wouldn’t make them talk but days or weeks of it could.

Great ideas! Are they legal does anyone know ?

NOW, NOW...I wasn't told to do the 'legal research'...I was asked to post my suggestions!!! And as far as the question about religion...well that already been ruled on by the judges...I posted it somewhere back there {pointing over my shoulder} the ruling about the detainees not being a 'person' so they have no religious leg to stand on.

WHALE AWAY ROSEANNE...crank that volume knob all the way UP!!!

 

[Pandora]

NOW, NOW...I wasn't told to do the 'legal research'...I was asked to post my suggestions!!! And as far as the question about religion...well that already been ruled on by the judges...I posted it somewhere back there {pointing over my shoulder} the ruling about the detainees not being a 'person' so they have no religious leg to stand on.

WHALE AWAY ROSEANNE...crank that volume knob all the way UP!!!

I didnt read that, some judge said they are not persons? that is very dangerous!