What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Mr. Shaman]

Thank you for the trip down memory lane...but it still doesn't set well for me! I still think that all of the smoke & mirrors about the Iraq invasion was and still is up for much debate {and I'm sure that many a collegiate debate team will pursue this topic with fine tooth combs, getting to the substance and truth}...

Hell....why bother waiting-on collegiate debate teams? They're going to make The Facts more-evident????

​

August 18, 2006

"The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran....

One former senior intelligence official is particularly concerned by private briefings that Vice President Dick Cheney is getting from former Office of Special Plans (OSP) Director, Abram Shulsky.

Shulsky, a leading Neoconservative and member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), headed the shadowy and secretive Department of Defense's OSP in the lead-up to the Iraq war -- helping to locate intelligence that would support the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.

Several foreign policy experts, who wish to remain anonymous, have expressed serious concern that much like the OSP, the ID is manipulating, cherry picking, and perhaps even -- as some suspect -- cooking intelligence to lead the U.S. into another conflict, this time with Iran.

"Cheney distrusts the information being disseminated by CIA on Iran," said one former senior intelligence official. "The reports assembled by the Iranian Directorate at the Pentagon differ significantly from the analysis produced by the Intelligence Community. The Pentagon Iranian Directorate relies on thin and unsupported reporting from foreign sources."

In the build-up to the Iraq war, Cheney relied on intelligence almost exclusively from the OSP, which leveled allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was later debunked, but no OSP or DOD officials were held accountable for what many believe was a "deliberate effort" to mislead the nation into war."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's totally disingenuous to pretend Al Qeada and Taliban fighters AREN'T military fighters. We see on the news everyday the pictures of them on the battlefields with full tilt military weaponry and chains of command.

Wow!!!

Can you teach ME how to differentiate between Al Qeada, Taliban & insurgent-citizenry, while watching the News???

I would LOVE to have such magical-abilities (that're...apparently....naturally bestowed-upon "conservatives", at birth)!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Like the years of legal precedence that the "torture" decision stood on?

Yeah....I'd settle for that....even though Chickenhawk DICK said the Present is (somehow) different.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Further, only a state has the right to declare war internationally, so Bin Laden's "declaration of war" has no legal authority. If you do not abide by the rules, do not expect to be treated like you did.

Agreed!!!.....and, propagandists NOW have to pay-for-their-Sins.​

"Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Further, only a state has the right to declare war internationally, so Bin Laden's "declaration of war" has no legal authority. If you do not abide by the rules, do not expect to be treated like you did.

Agreed!!!.....and, propagandists NOW have to pay-for-their-Sins.​

"Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war."​

I agree we need to move on.

....A tactic often-employed by young-children who've done something wrong, and wish to avoid accountability: "Let's RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!"

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My point is that in this day and age it seems more coherent to adjust the "rules" to fit the current forms of foreign fighters that are without any doubt an official military force but are religious based and not country based as POW's... than it is to just declare them as something other than a fighting military force just so that we can torture them

If not then it seems this is not a real military issue in the first place and we should go back to treating this as a criminal issue like we always did before Bush.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​

"Moran joined Interpol last year to investigate international sex crimes against children. He tries to identify the country where the actual crime is taking place and then he passes on the information to the appropriate jurisdiction for further investigation.

Walk into any office at Interpol and you might find a German tracking stolen art, an American unraveling a new drug route through West Africa, or a French woman investigating a counterfeit malaria drug.

Aline Lecadre spent months working with the World Health Organization trying to find the origin of deadly pills that were flooding the market in Vietnam and Laos.

Interpol's command center is a clearinghouse for international crime and maintains the world's largest database of known terrorists -- 11,000 names.

Australian Chris Eaton says Interpol not only receives daily reports on significant worldwide events, they also monitor the jihadist Web sites.

It's not glamorous work, but last year Interpol played a role in 4,500 arrests, including a war criminal from the former Yugoslavia and an al Qaeda terrorist connected to the Madrid train bombing."

​

 

[Carlo Rossi]

Criminal issue, meaning wait until they detonate the dirty bomb and kill and maim thousands before we arrest them, give them miranda, and a taxpayer funded, court appointed attorney?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If we treat them as POW's, they would be held until the end of hostilities... Period. That's what we do with "POW's"

...We don't put them on trial, they don't get their day in court, we don't prosecute them (unless they are charged with war crimes) and they wouldn't be senetenced or released.

How 'bout the ones that're there, for-profit....you know, those beneficiaries of "conservatives" throwing-money at The Problem?

"Said one leaflet:

"You can receive million$ of dollar$. ... This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life — pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people."​

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Criminal issue, meaning wait until they detonate the dirty bomb and kill and maim thousands before we arrest them.....

That's more a management-issue.....

​

"As the new Administration took office, Rice kept Clarke in his job as counterterrorism czar. In early February, he repeated to Vice President Dick Cheney the briefing he had given to Rice and Hadley. There are differing opinions on how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Some members of the outgoing Administration got the sense that the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism. "It was clear," says one, "that this was not the same priority to them that it was to us."

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death.

By now, Clarke's famously short fuse was giving off sparks. A participant at one of the meetings paraphrases Clarke's attitude this way: "These people are trying to kill us. I could give a f___ if Musharraf was democratically elected. What I do care about is Pakistan's support for the Taliban and turning a blind eye to this terrorist cancer growing in their neighbor's backyard."​

 

[top gun]

Criminal issue, meaning wait until they detonate the dirty bomb and kill and maim thousands before we arrest them, give them miranda, and a taxpayer funded, court appointed attorney?

I've heard no one say that is the ONLY thing we can do.

What's being said is we should not torture detainees. Remember not all detainees are guilty... we've even let some go... so our picking them up is obviously NOT a guarantee that they are guilty of ANYTHING.

What's being said is these people who are bearing arms against us should be either killed on the battlefield or if captured treated as enemy POW's.

Since this so called "war" can never end because there will always be some rouge terrorist person or group somewhere they need to be tried in some form to establish a proper punishment from continued incarceration all the way to the death penalty.

There is though also a large number of criminal issues involved here as well so if it's to our advantage I'm for going after them that way as well.

What we can't and shouldn't do is just detain everybody without any formal charges or trial and keep them forever torturing them at will.

That can't sound right to you can it?

And let's think about it for a second. The 9-11 hijackers were the under the radar types. That's the likely guy to set off some dirty bomb not some wild eyed looking Arab guy in a turban holding an AK47.

We gonna start picking up, detaining forever and do the waterboard torture to ALL people of a certain ethnic group because one of their type might do something wrong?

We can never stop everything... we couldn't even stop Timothy McVeigh and he was right here under our nose in America. But we can stop most everything and still be a respectable country of laws.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Crazy appears to "run" in Dick de Sade's family.​

 

[Butercupp]

I am assuming you mean prisoners of war...

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

Remain silent and refuse to answer questions - YES
Anything you do or say may be used against you in a court of law -YES
You have the right to consult an attorney - NO
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed - NO

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

1st Amendment:
Freedom of (or from) religion. - would we be trying to convert them?
Freedom of speech. - would we prosecute them if they said mean things?
Freedom to assemble. - I assume they are not allowed to assemble.
Freedom to petition the government. - They should have this right. Through military courts.

2nd Amendment:
Right to bear arms. - Absolutely Not.

3rd Amendment:
Freedom from quartering soldiers. - Absolutely Not.

4th Amendment:
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. - This is after they have become prisoners of war...? No they should not have this right.

5th Amendment:
Criminal indictments must be by grand jury. - Absolutely Not.
Freedom from double jeopardy. - Yes.
Freedom from testifying against oneself. - No.
Right to face accusers. - No.
Right to due process. - Yes, they should have a trial before being punished. Because as much as we want to think we are right 100% of the time, we are not. I don't want to kill an innocent person.

6th Amendment:
Right to speedy trial. - After the war is over.
Right to impartial jury. - Unlikely to happen.
Right to be informed of the charges upon which the accused is held. - Yes
Right to face accusers. - No
Right to produce witnesses for the accused. - Yes
Right to legal counsel. - If they pay for it themselves.

7th Amendment:
Right to jury trial in civil cases. - No.

8th Amendment:
Freedom from excessive bail or fines. - Absolutely Not.
Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment. - YES.

13th Amendment:
Right to not be a slave. - Yes.

14th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

15th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

17th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

19th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

23rd Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

24th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

26th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

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

Good Cop/ Bad Cop Routine

Deception

Kinesic Interviewing

Neurolinguistic Interviewing

Reid 9 Step Technique

This is one of the most successful methods of interrogation used in police investigations.

The nine steps in summary are:
Confrontation- detective states that the suspect is involved in the claim citing true or false evidence;
Theme Development- detective proposes reasons justifying or excusing the commission of the crime;
Stopping denials- interrupts suspect denials;
Overcoming Objections- framing suspect objections as possible admissions of guilt;
Getting the suspect's attention- Physical closeness and use of verbal techniques to command attention;
The suspect loses resolve- physical signs of surrender begin to appear eg, tears, shaking ; Alternatives- interrogator offers two contrasting motives until suspect makes choice between acceptable reason and unacceptable reason for committing the crime;
Bringing the Suspect into the Conversation- suspect is encouraged to talk about aspect of the crime;
The Confession- interrogator has suspect write out confession or state it on videotape.

The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to end the interrogation.
_______________________________________
Here are my thoughts. Hope they help you understand another point of view.

 

[top gun]

I am assuming you mean prisoners of war...

1. Should suspects receive Miranda rights?

Remain silent and refuse to answer questions - YES
Anything you do or say may be used against you in a court of law -YES
You have the right to consult an attorney - NO
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed - NO

2. Should suspects receive constitutional rights?

1st Amendment:
Freedom of (or from) religion. - would we be trying to convert them?
Freedom of speech. - would we prosecute them if they said mean things?
Freedom to assemble. - I assume they are not allowed to assemble.
Freedom to petition the government. - They should have this right. Through military courts.

2nd Amendment:
Right to bear arms. - Absolutely Not.

3rd Amendment:
Freedom from quartering soldiers. - Absolutely Not.

4th Amendment:
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. - This is after they have become prisoners of war...? No they should not have this right.

5th Amendment:
Criminal indictments must be by grand jury. - Absolutely Not.
Freedom from double jeopardy. - Yes.
Freedom from testifying against oneself. - No.
Right to face accusers. - No.
Right to due process. - Yes, they should have a trial before being punished. Because as much as we want to think we are right 100% of the time, we are not. I don't want to kill an innocent person.

6th Amendment:
Right to speedy trial. - After the war is over.
Right to impartial jury. - Unlikely to happen.
Right to be informed of the charges upon which the accused is held. - Yes
Right to face accusers. - No
Right to produce witnesses for the accused. - Yes
Right to legal counsel. - If they pay for it themselves.

7th Amendment:
Right to jury trial in civil cases. - No.

8th Amendment:
Freedom from excessive bail or fines. - Absolutely Not.
Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment. - YES.

13th Amendment:
Right to not be a slave. - Yes.

14th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

15th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

17th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

19th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

23rd Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

24th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

26th Amendment: - Absolutely Not.

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

Good Cop/ Bad Cop Routine

Deception

Kinesic Interviewing

Neurolinguistic Interviewing

Reid 9 Step Technique

This is one of the most successful methods of interrogation used in police investigations.

The nine steps in summary are:
Confrontation- detective states that the suspect is involved in the claim citing true or false evidence;
Theme Development- detective proposes reasons justifying or excusing the commission of the crime;
Stopping denials- interrupts suspect denials;
Overcoming Objections- framing suspect objections as possible admissions of guilt;
Getting the suspect's attention- Physical closeness and use of verbal techniques to command attention;
The suspect loses resolve- physical signs of surrender begin to appear eg, tears, shaking ; Alternatives- interrogator offers two contrasting motives until suspect makes choice between acceptable reason and unacceptable reason for committing the crime;
Bringing the Suspect into the Conversation- suspect is encouraged to talk about aspect of the crime;
The Confession- interrogator has suspect write out confession or state it on videotape.

The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to end the interrogation.
_______________________________________
Here are my thoughts. Hope they help you understand another point of view.

That's a lot to ingest here in just one post my friend... but you gave a very thorough outline of your opinion of the proper rights involved. It seems well thought out.

 

[samsara15]

Let them listen to old Republican speeches and campaign ads! In ten minutes, they'll be beggng to spill everything they know.

 

[top gun]

let them listen to old republican speeches and campaign ads! In ten minutes, they'll be beggng to spill everything they know.

That's great LOL!!!!!!!!!!