What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Dr.Who]

On a personal note, the forecast for Bristol Bay salmon is overall good, a fewer sockeye, but more Chinooks. The lower 48, SEAlaska, and Kodiak fisheries will be slighting down overall this year, which will make for a good market of the most pure and wild salmon available in the world. So gobble up wild salmon at the restaurants and especially at the grocery store(WalMart carries it) and enjoy.

I have had a real HARD time finding wild salmon. Invariably it ends up being farm raised dyed salmon.

I generally stick to the canned stuff because it is the only stuff that is easy to find and is actually know to be wild. I also only buy if from Alaska because as far as I know ALL other salmon has too much mercury etc.

 

[Dr.Who]

Lawyers are not so bad.

Until you take your foot off of their head.

http://www.jokepub.com/joke-Drowing_lawyer-845.php

 

[PLC1]

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 ?

Loud music isn't going to kill anyone. I personally wouldn't call that torture. I'm not sure it is really very effective, but, hey, if you want to make someone's life unpleasant, loud music is a way to do it. If loud music is torture, then there are a lot of young people who are torturing themselves, as they play their stereos loudly enough to make my windows vibrate while sitting in traffic next to them. Once in a while, I wonder if they are torturing me as well.

As for temperature extremes, that would depend. Most of the cases of hypothermia happen at not at extreme temps, but somewhere in the 40s or 50s, combined with wet and wind. Hypothermia is a life threatening condition, so inducing it would definitely fall under the heading of torture.

Extreme heat can kill, too. The opposite of hypothermia is hyperthermia, which can cause stroke, and death. Beyond question, that is torture.

 

[kathaksung]

Waterboarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, stress positions, use of harmless insects, slamming detainees into false walls, grabbing of faces, and many other non-lethal methods that do no permanent damage have all been deemed torture... So... What interrogation techniques will the squeamish hand-wringers allow?

Is this too harsh?

But seriously... I would like to know 3 things:

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

3. What Can we do to get information from suspects?

I'd like answers to those questions and please don't forget the list of interrogation techniques you would approve.

We all know what you think is inappropriate, so please don't bore everyone with tripe about, "we shouldn't torture, so anything short of torture is fine with me" nonsense... that's a total cop-out answer and the kind of answer people who feel, rather than think, would give to such a question.

None of the above list were considered torture by the people using the tactics. So if you are one who has complained about our use of those enhanced interrogation techniques, prove that you are willing to give the topic some thought, that you're not just a knee-jerk reactionary, by providing a list of techniques you would approve.

Though you are using a light tone to describe torture, the situation is much serious than people can imagine. None-leathal? A little over dose will cause death and permanent handicape. Only they never told you the turth.

A US major reveals the inside story of military interrogation in Iraq.

by Patrick Coburn
April 26, 2009 by the Independent/UK

The use of torture by the US has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11, says the leader of a crack US interrogation team in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...y-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html

<http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/26>

 

[GenSeneca]

Though you are using a light tone to describe torture, the situation is much serious than people can imagine. None-leathal? A little over dose will cause death and permanent handicape. Only they never told you the turth.

I think this is the first time I've seen Kathak post something that wasn't a cut & paste job... even if it was just one senetence.

Katak makes reference to the events at Abu Graib, which, as stated previously, were not interrogation techniques at all.

Please don't be distracted by this latest straw man/red herring fallacy... just stay on topic.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;94697]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.

The problem is (and you absolutely know this Rob) there simply isn't enough charity to address the entire total problem and the need. That's why the government got involved in the first place. So saying some Conservatives give a lot to charity means really very little in the big picture.

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.

Do you really think that's the other side Rob? Because if you do then you are not a man of the law. It's LEGAL... been LEGAL for going on 4 decades for a woman to have control over her reproductive rights and choose or not choose an abortion.

When has it ever been legal to kill doctors because you don't agree with their legal practices or blow up women's healthcare clinics injuring & killing people?

This is not a comparison at all and you know it. If it were than every terrorist in the world is right in line with your thinking. They don't like the law... they kill people.

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.

Well then we have different sympathy scales. I see old people being duped and it pisses me off!

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.

Freedom of religion mean no one sect can hold sway and power over another. There are religious (spiritual) beliefs and interpretations that do not find the same things as wrong... hence the separation of church & state mean none can take precedent.

Add to that it's well established that America was never intended to be set up as a theocracy. One of the main reasons people fled to the new world was problems with the Church of England in effect being an arm of the government.

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.

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

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.

I grouped all this together because you didn't post my statement so I don't really know the context. On the last paragraph... I never said people can't follow them... I simply said after examining them I don't like them

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).

That is a legal interpretation now holding almost 4 decades of legal precedent. We obey the laws as they are interpreted by our courts not as only one particular side or group would like them interpreted.

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.

Well I'm both a man and a father. And I have daughters. Looking at things from every angle I know the choice has to be the woman's. First and most obvious because we can't stop their decision anyway. But more importantly because there is a lot of circumstances that get women pregnant... rape... incest etc. and I'm not going to be the one judging who's telling the truth and who's not.

It's their bodies. No where else in law is it mandated that a person give up control & private use of their body for something or someone to be able to live. There are many incidences where this could be very life saving and helpful... but ones personal choice of how their body is used is legally their choice.

 

[top gun]

This one seem more like statistical fact than like opinion.



Maybe because it is immoral to fund these coercive programs and all those people should be helped without coercion?

Wanting to do away with those bad programs is not the same as wanting to hurt the people the programs presently enable, er I mean help.



But equating holy rollers with the far radical right is just as ludicrous as equating Senator Lieberman with the Weather Underground.


Con men disguised as religious folk are just as despicable as con men disguised as benevolent politicians.


Yep.


If they are actually followers of Christ they can't. But if they are wolves in sheeps clothing then obviously they can. I have no trouble telling the difference and I bet you don't either.


There are people like that but it would be a mistake to overestimate their numbers of influence.


They are bad but government officials are far more dangerous since those sham evangelists only try to influence them but statist politicians don't need any help to influence themselves.


I am too. As long as it is not the immoral killing of a human being. Answer that question and we can easily decide what to do about abortion.


If the alternative is to allow one to kill innocent human life then it is a no brainer. Is it killed? innocent? Human? life?


Every person, women or man, should be given every safe sterile medical care she can buy or have donated unless it results in the avoidable death of another human life.

I think I addressed my position throughly up above in my reply to Rob. So that would be my same response here.

The only thing I see as different in your post is an unequivocal belief that your religion is THE RIGHT AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION and hence you have some higher standing to set the rules people must live by.

But traveling the world I see this is always the case with every religion. Muslims believe it... they even commit suicide they believe it so much. Hindus believe it... Buddists... Jews... Scientologist... on & on & on all believe they are the ones.

I keep it simple. I respect all that do good... and point out when any of any group does not. Works for me...

 

[GenSeneca]

Loud music isn't going to kill anyone.

Is causing someone to go deaf, torture?

As for temperature extremes, that would depend. Most of the cases of hypothermia happen at not at extreme temps, but somewhere in the 40s or 50s, combined with wet and wind. Hypothermia is a life threatening condition, so inducing it would definitely fall under the heading of torture.

Extreme heat can kill, too. The opposite of hypothermia is hyperthermia, which can cause stroke, and death. Beyond question, that is torture.

This is exactly the kind of stuff I wanted to get into....

Q. What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?
A. "Everything up to the point of torture."

Both ASPCA and PLC agreed that Waterboarding was torture, as do many of you out there, but their "point" of where interrogation becomes torture is different. Notice that PLC is not attacking ASPCA as a supporter of torture though... He's not suggesting that ASPCA just shoot people in the head and be done with it and he's not declaring his position on the moral high ground.This is why I think its important for everyone here to find and name their "point" where interrogation becomes torture.

Bunz, you think the discussion has been good so far... People who previously claimed to hold the moral high ground for considering waterboarding torture will suddenly find themselves confronted with a technique they approve of as not being torture but someone else does consider torture. Which one now has the moral high ground? Ultimately, does the person suggesting 5 star hotel treatment hold the moral high ground? These are rhetorical but, nevertheless, brilliant questions.

I hope to see this thread continue in this direction of people coming to terms with where their "point" begins and comparing that to where the "points" are located for others.

 

[BigRob]

The problem is (and you absolutely know this Rob) there simply isn't enough charity to address the entire total problem and the need. That's why the government got involved in the first place. So saying some Conservatives give a lot to charity means really very little in the big picture.

This is the case the way the tax setup works now yes. I do think you will find (and some studies confirm this others dispute it) that private charities use money more efficiently and with better results than the government is able to achieve. This is especially why I think Obama's proposal to limit tax deductible donations to private charities is the wrong move.

Do you really think that's the other side Rob? Because if you do then you are not a man of the law. It's LEGAL... been LEGAL for going on 4 decades for a woman to have control over her reproductive rights and choose or not choose an abortion.

Well torture was legal to at the time, and it seems that is irrelevant now. I am not saying go kill a doctor, but you see the moral dilemma if you have the mentality of "life begins at conception."

I grouped all this together because you didn't post my statement so I don't really know the context. On the last paragraph... I never said people can't follow them... I simply said after examining them I don't like them

Fair enough.

That is a legal interpretation now holding almost 4 decades of legal precedent. We obey the laws as they are interpreted by our courts not as only one particular side or group would like them interpreted.

There are also laws that charge killing a pregnant woman with double murder. It seems there is a bit of a double standard.

I am not sitting here saying we should go kill doctors for performing an abortion, but lobbying to change the law is certainly something that should be done in my view.

Well I'm both a man and a father. And I have daughters. Looking at things from every angle I know the choice has to be the woman's. First and most obvious because we can't stop their decision anyway. But more importantly because there is a lot of circumstances that get women pregnant... rape... incest etc. and I'm not going to be the one judging who's telling the truth and who's not.

Rape and incest account for around 1% (if that) of total abortions in this country. Mostly it is an issue of convenience in my view.

It's their bodies. No where else in law is it mandated that a person give up control & private use of their body for something or someone to be able to live. There are many incidences where this could be very life saving and helpful... but ones personal choice of how their body is used is legally their choice.

I don't buy that killing a baby is a personal choice. I don't think anyone has that choice, but that seems to be what the whole debate is centered around. When does life start.

 

[Pandora]

Lawyers are not so bad.

You must be one to say something like that


What is the difference between a Lawyer and an attorney? or are they the same?

 

[Pandora]

Loud music isn't going to kill anyone. I personally wouldn't call that torture. I'm not sure it is really very effective, but, hey, if you want to make someone's life unpleasant, loud music is a way to do it. If loud music is torture, then there are a lot of young people who are torturing themselves, as they play their stereos loudly enough to make my windows vibrate while sitting in traffic next to them. Once in a while, I wonder if they are torturing me as well.

As for temperature extremes, that would depend. Most of the cases of hypothermia happen at not at extreme temps, but somewhere in the 40s or 50s, combined with wet and wind. Hypothermia is a life threatening condition, so inducing it would definitely fall under the heading of torture.

Extreme heat can kill, too. The opposite of hypothermia is hyperthermia, which can cause stroke, and death. Beyond question, that is torture.

I was not worried about music being torture. I know that devout Muslims can not listen to music. So it would be making them do something against their religion. It would be like making them eat pork. So I did not think that was legal but I don’t think its torture.

Personally if a terrorist suspect knew of an attack coming I would have no problem throwing pigs blood on him to get my information but I don’t think that’s legal. I think the point of this thread is to find out what we are willing to do but also stay within the law and keep from torture.

I feel strange to say I would be willing to throw pigs blood on them because if I were captured and someone wanted info out of me I did not want to give, I would hate it if they tried to make me do something against my faith. But then again, I would never attempt to bomb or help or plan with anyone to bomb anything.

I think there could be problems with that hot cold temp stuff, I would not want anyone to die or be seriously injured so what ever could be done in the way of hot and cold temps is good enough for me.

 

[GenSeneca]

Post #203:

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?

Rob and Dr. Who,

Please stop enabling Top Gun in his intentional derailment of the topic.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;94830]This is the case the way the tax setup works now yes. I do think you will find (and some studies confirm this others dispute it) that private charities use money more efficiently and with better results than the government is able to achieve. This is especially why I think Obama's proposal to limit tax deductible donations to private charities is the wrong move.

That's still my point. It wasn't ALWAYS set up that way and private charity absolutely positively by every measure and study could not keep up with need.

As far as charities using money wisely. Some do some don't. It's not unusual to see stories on TV involving charities & nonprofits.

And while it's true that there is going to be some amount more administration costs in a large national program it's also not nearly as hit & miss as depending on a thousands of independent charities with rules & guidelines all over the board.

Well torture was legal to at the time, and it seems that is irrelevant now. I am not saying go kill a doctor, but you see the moral dilemma if you have the mentality of "life begins at conception."

A moral dilemma is a personal problem... not a warrant to just disobey the law, take the law into ones own hands and become judge, jury and hangman (or in this case bomber or sniper)to those not breaking the law but to whom you disagree with.

There are also laws that charge killing a pregnant woman with double murder. It seems there is a bit of a double standard.

I can see how some could extrapolate to that conclusion. But it really isn't as close as you might think. There are major differences.

A third party in a violent act killing a woman who is pregnant also killing the fetus... or even just killing the fetus against the will of the woman is an understandable punishment upgrade. The third party criminal has no right to deprive the woman of her life nor her child.

A woman not wanting to be forced to carry a child to term for any number of reasons an choosing to terminate her own pregnancy is something quite different.

We have to remember this is the woman's body to which without it the embryo's cells will not continue to multiple & divide and eventually come to a birth @ terms end. The woman has always controlled this.

To me the ways up until 1973 of throwing ones self down a flight of stairs, jamming a coat hanger up inside themselves or drinking drain cleaner was not the better way to address an early unwanted pregnancy.

I am not sitting here saying we should go kill doctors for performing an abortion, but lobbying to change the law is certainly something that should be done in my view

.

I never thought you were for hurting anyone... but some definitely have & are.

And lobbying by anti-Choice groups that's been going on all through Roe's almost 4 decade precedent through Democratic & Republican control. The fact is if you look at the voting make up of the country with women being such a strong bock it would do no good anyway to overturn Roe.

With light speed there would be a Constitutional Amendment put forward guaranteeing a woman's reproductive rights and 9 out of every 10 politicians that stood against it would be on their very last term. Of this I have no doubt.

Rape and incest account for around 1% (if that) of total abortions in this country. Mostly it is an issue of convenience in my view.

But you don't know which 1%. Forcing women that are already going through a lot of emotional stress to lie does not make the situation better. And who knows how many women don't report rape & incest out of shame or threat of violence.

While it's true most abortions are done because a woman just simply does not want to carry a child to term... only they really know who they are.

I don't buy that killing a baby is a personal choice. I don't think anyone has that choice, but that seems to be what the whole debate is centered around. When does life start.

Well the majority of Americans and the Supreme Court sees the whole question in a different light.

As far as when life starts it's really more of a personhood question. When do growing cells that could not live on their own, and may or may not naturally make it to live birth, become a person. And that legal line has been drawn.

That legal line is known as viability. When it would be reasonable to believe the fetus could live outside the womb. And that seems reasonable to me.

Anything other than that and the religious opinions swing around all over the place as to when life starts. For instance in the Jewish faith life is said to start at "crowning" when the baby is being born.

I think viability gives the woman enough time to decide and still puts a time limit on how advanced she can be. Of course no time limit stops an abortion if life of the mother is in question. No one has to die to have a child.

 

[BigRob]

You must be one to say something like that


What is the difference between a Lawyer and an attorney? or are they the same?

I am definitely not a lawyer, just married to one and related to about 50 others in my immediate family lol.

As far as I know Lawyer and Attorney just mean the same thing.

 

[Pandora]

I am definitely not a lawyer, just married to one and related to about 50 others in my immediate family lol.

As far as I know Lawyer and Attorney just mean the same thing.

OK if you are married to one then there is for sure one nice one out there.