What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[BigRob]

I am assuming you mean prisoners of war...

It is not an issue of POW's, we know how they are to be treated. The issue is "detainees."

Do you think all your points should be applied to them as well?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is not an issue of POW's, we know how they are to be treated. The issue is "detainees."

Ah, yes....another favorite of the Bush Tap-Dancing Revue:

"There's a DIFFERENCE, between Prisoners & Detainees! Just ask UNCLE DICK!!"

​

 

[BigRob]

Ah, yes....another favorite of the Bush Tap-Dancing Revue:

"There's a DIFFERENCE, between Prisoners & Detainees! Just ask UNCLE DICK!!"

​

Or ask the Geneva Conventions. Yes, there is a difference.

 

[Butercupp]

It is not an issue of POW's, we know how they are to be treated. The issue is "detainees."

Do you think all your points should be applied to them as well?

Yes, because I view them as human beings.

 

[GenSeneca]

I simply see no reason to keep making the same winning points over & over again if you only deny the obvious just to stretch things out.

Then stop replying. You're clearly not interested in a serious conversation on the topic.

A filibuster is dragging a position out to try and stymie some action. In this case my win over you.

Right here you admit that you do not approach this as a conversation to be discussed as rational adults but instead, to you, it's a childish pissing contest to be won or lost. I created this thread in hopes of discussing interrogation in practical terms; what techniques can be found that are both effective in gaining information in a timely manner and humane enough to avoid becoming torture.

Unfortunately, you don't want to discuss the actual topic because you know it isn't a competition that can be won or lost. You need every discussion to become a competition because your "intellectual" ammunition (which consists of talking points, fallacies and demonization of the competition) can only be used in a competition setting and is completely useless for honest discussion.

Obviously through the video you see the evidence that WE PROSECUTED other countries for WATERBOARDING.

What you of course are still ignoring is the manner in which it took place. You said that jumper cables on genitals was not torture until the electrical current was turned up high enough... Well I see that same type of distinction between our use of waterboarding and theirs.

So to say you don't think it's torture because it's not clearly enough defined.

I see you're still trying to mischaracterize my position... Of course that's the only way you can "win" is to set up this strawman then attack it... Hence its your primary strategy and why you've convinced yourself that you're somehow "winning". Your back up strategy is to demonize me, through personal attacks against my character, in hopes of discrediting anything I have to say on the topic. You can't deal with the message, so you focus on destroying the messenger.

only proves you are not as smart as our own prosecuters... which is no front page news I guess.

And there's the backup strategy.... More thinly veiled personal attacks...

How predictably Progressive of you...

The previous prosecution documentation video proved this point has already been lost by you my friend.

I provided the distinctions between our use of waterboarding and the way in which those we prosecuted used the practice... I provided the vital information that was intentionally left out of your propaganda video for the expressed purpose of mis-informing the viewer as to specifics surrounding the practice.

It was equivocation (ambiguous expressions in order to mislead) on your part to use the term "waterboarding" without the requisite context necessary to draw distinctions between how the practice was used.

You can't even admit there were very drastic differences between our use of waterboarding and the practice as done by those we prosecuted, because that would expose your premise as being fallacious. We waterboarded 3 high ranking AQ leaders, as humanely as could be done with such a harsh practice, to get high value information quickly. The people we prosecuted for waterboarding, did so to anyone, at any time, for any reason, and they were brutal, in some cases murderous, in their use of the practice.

The most you can say is "we got away with torture"... move on.

I believe we can waterboard in such a way that it is not torture but I also believe any use of jumper cables on genitals is torture.

You believe we can put jumper cables on someones genitals in such a way that its not torture but that we cannot, in any way, waterboard without it being torture.

The two sentences above are powerful.
---------------------------------------

Now here's more from another one of your posts:

What's being said is we should not torture detainees.

Nobody is arguing that we should torture. This is simply your continued attempt at mischaracterizing the position of the opposition. Nobody is arguing for the ability to torture detainees, that's your straw man argument to demonize anyone who disagrees with you that our use of waterboarding constituted torture. You think it was torture, I don't. I think putting jumper cables on the genitals of detainees and passing an electric current through it would be torture, you don't.

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.

As has already been stated numerous times... POW's do not get the treatment you go onto describe:

they need to be tried in some form to establish a proper punishment from continued incarceration all the way to the death penalty.

The treatement you've described (minus the death penalty) is precisely what detainees were receiving through militarty tribunals prior to the SCOTUS that put an end to such tribunals.

That can't sound right to you can it?

No it doesn't. You are contradicting yourself in your statements... You may as well be demanding we make applesauce out of oranges.

This next one's a doozy, so I have to split it up...

We gonna start picking up, detaining forever

If given POW status, yes, they could be detained forever, without a trial.

and do the waterboard torture to ALL people of a certain ethnic group because one of their type might do something wrong?

Here is your mischaracterization again... Your good buddy Mr. Strawman in the form of an appeal to ridicule. Nobody is now, or has ever, suggested we waterboard (much less torture) all people of a certain ethnic group or that we do so just for shats and giggles.

The 9-11 hijackers were the under the radar types.

Not really... their actions raised a great deal of red flags. However, our agencies were operating under cold war era policies that prevented them from talking to one another and sharing such red flag information. When you have only one or two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to look at, the overall picture is not clear, and that's what each agency had.

 

[top gun]

Yes, because I view them as human beings.

And that is the whole issue here. Yes they are on the other side of this conflict and yes they are the bad guys...

But they are captured human beings.

Thank you for your ability to see the importance surrounding all of the issues and not get caught up playing the semantics game.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;96249]Then stop replying. You're clearly not interested in a serious conversation on the topic.

I think you should stop repeating yourself and come up with some new questions. We all know you are for torture as long as we are the ones doing it... and I'm not. Seems our positions are already well staked out.

Right here you admit that you do not approach this as a conversation to be discussed as rational adults but instead, to you, it's a childish pissing contest to be won or lost. I created this thread in hopes of discussing interrogation in practical terms; what techniques can be found that are both effective in gaining information in a timely manner and humane enough to avoid becoming torture.

Well there came a point where I think you lost the debate because your spin is all about not calling waterboarding torture... which it obviously is. But I think Butercupp gave some good answers on interrogation techniques.

What you of course are still ignoring is the manner in which it took place. You said that jumper cables on genitals was not torture until the electrical current was turned up high enough... Well I see that same type of distinction between our use of waterboarding and theirs.

The problem you have is that there really is no distinction in waterboarding. Whether you dunk somebody, pour water into a rag stuffed in his mouth or run water lines down his nose and throat it's all the same attempted drowning. It all feels the same to the victim. They are being suffocated by water induction. You know this.

In the electrical scenario there is a huge difference between a slightly annoying/uncomfortable tingle (which I of coarse also believe is degrading and wrong) and a high voltage electrifying shocking. I wouldn't do any of it because I think it's all discusting.

But waterboarding is the suffocating of a person by water whether you use a pool, a bath tub, a bucket, or a hose. Babies have died from falling into a bucket with just an inch or two of water. The transportation system does not alter the effect at all.

It was equivocation (ambiguous expressions in order to mislead) on your part to use the term "waterboarding" without the requisite context necessary to draw distinctions between how the practice was used.

Again see above...

You can't even admit there were very drastic differences between our use of waterboarding and the practice as done by those we prosecuted, because that would expose your premise as being fallacious. We waterboarded 3 high ranking AQ leaders, as humanely as could be done with such a harsh practice, to get high value information quickly. The people we prosecuted for waterboarding, did so to anyone, at any time, for any reason, and they were brutal, in some cases murderous, in their use of the practice.

And yet again see above...

And your attempt to say torture isn't really as bad if you do it to fewer people is... well... lame.

I believe we can waterboard in such a way that it is not torture but I also believe any use of jumper cables on genitals is torture.

Well then not surprisingly you'd be wrong.

Torture and Prison Abuse in Iraq
Prisoner at Camp Bucca
Picture Credit: David Furst

In April 2004, the New Yorker magazine revealed the "systematic and illegal abuse of detainees," including torture and degrading treatment, by US interrogators and guards at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad. Since then, many reports have established US mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, and published hundreds of gruesome photographs taken by prison guards. These reports (some produced by the Pentagon) have exposed the widespread abuse and torture of detainees and a number of deaths under detention and interrogation, as well as the hiding of prisoners from International Committee of the Red Cross inspectors.

World public opinion has condemned the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers as a war crime and a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions. Washington has attributed the events to “bad apples” and failed to accept responsibility or to hold seriously accountable mid- and high-level military officers and civilian officials, even though these people had established policies and issued orders that led directly to the abuses. Military courts have only tried and charged low-ranking individuals.

Abuses have taken place in detention sites under direct US authority, but also in detention centers administered by British forces and by the government of Iraq.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think you should stop repeating yourself and come up with some new questions.

You mean like the many I have asked that you ignore and pretend don't exist?

What specific interrogation techniques can you identify that are both effective in gaining information in a timely manner and humane enough to avoid becoming torture? <--That was the topic, it's a question to be answered, not a debate to be argued.

You want dog collars around the necks of detainees: How does that qualify as an interrogation technique?

We all know you are for torture as long as we are the ones doing it... and I'm not. Seems our positions are already well staked out.

You do support torture, jumper cables on genitals is obviously torture. Dog collars on the necks of detainees is just some sick fetish of yours... I don't think we should torture anyone, but we do need to have some interrogation methods that go beyond a stern talking to.

Well there came a point where I think you lost the debate because your spin is all about not calling waterboarding torture... which it obviously is.

It was not a debate. You kept trying to make it a debate because you cannot participate on the topic as requested. All you can do is attack, attack, attack... nothing of substance or intellectual honesty has yet to come from one of your posts.

The problem you have is that there really is no distinction in waterboarding. Whether you dunk somebody, pour water into a rag stuffed in his mouth or run water lines down his nose and throat it's all the same attempted drowning. It all feels the same to the victim.

If you are savagely beating them on top of the simulated drowning, yes, it does make a difference, which doesn't feel the same to the victim as just the simulated drowning, and you know this.

In the electrical scenario there is a huge difference between a slightly annoying/uncomfortable tingle and a high voltage electrifying shocking.

You're one sick puppy.... Its almost shocking (pun intended) that you are advocating that we should torture each and every detainee we capture on the battlefield in this fashion.

But waterboarding is the suffocating of a person by water whether you use a pool, a bath tub, a bucket, or a hose. Babies have died from falling into a bucket with just an inch or two of water. The transportation system does not alter the effect at all.

So you think as long as we keep the electrical current running through someones genitals at a reasonably tingly level, we can savagely beat them, stomp on their stomachs and it won't alter the effect of the jumper cable-genital treatment at all... Only a Progressive could make such an argument.
Also, more babies have died from abortion than from drowning in buckets.

And your attempt to say torture isn't really as bad if you do it to fewer people is... well... lame.

That was not the intent of pointing out we only waterboarded 3 people, you kept insisting that we waterboarded every single detainee we could find when you know full well that was never the case.
----------
More questions that you haven't answered... Here are your two contradictory statements:

"we should treat them like POW's"
And,
"they need to be tried in some form to establish a proper punishment from continued incarceration all the way to the death penalty."

If you want them treated as POW's, we cannot put them on any kind of trial without charging them with war crimes.... So which is it...

Do you want them to have the rights of POW's or the rights of Common Criminals?

 

[GenSeneca]

Butercupp,

First let me thank you for such an in depth reply, its refreshing to see someone take the topic seriously and offer genuine answers to very difficult questions.

I am assuming you mean prisoners of war...

Currently they are termed "detainees", if they become POW's then the GC spells out what rights they are entitled to, how we are to go about keeping them in custody during the war and how to repatriate them after the war has ended.

Freedom to petition the government. - They should have this right. Through military courts.

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?

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.

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.

Right to speedy trial. - After the war is over.

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.

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.

According to the Army Field Manual (FM 34-52), we already use such techniques and they are certainly a welcomed addition to the thread. Here is a diagram from that section of the manual:

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.

Here are my thoughts. Hope they help you understand another point of view.

Many thanks, I hope you continue to contribute to the thread and participate in the discussion.

 

[top gun]

You mean like the many I have asked that you ignore and pretend don't exist?

What specific interrogation techniques can you identify that are both effective in gaining information in a timely manner and humane enough to avoid becoming torture? <--That was the topic, it's a question to be answered, not a debate to be argued.

You want dog collars around the necks of detainees: How does that qualify as an interrogation technique?


You do support torture, jumper cables on genitals is obviously torture. Dog collars on the necks of detainees is just some sick fetish of yours... I don't think we should torture anyone, but we do need to have some interrogation methods that go beyond a stern talking to.

To not be just a 100% total liar show us where I said I SUPPORT JUMPER CABLES ON THE GENITALS. Because I clearly said this...

In the electrical scenario there is a huge difference between a slightly annoying/uncomfortable tingle (which I of coarse also believe is degrading and wrong) and a high voltage electrifying shocking. I wouldn't do any of it because I think it's all disgusting.

So you are a liar right there................. not surprisingly.

And furthermore if you had even a single clue about sports medicine you'd Know that STIM TREATMENTS are exactly what... electrodes taped to an injured area with the voltage turned up to the highest tolerable levels which increases circulation to the area and healing while also creating a higher pain threshold and numbing effect to the injured area.

What am I doing... you know nothing about anything else why in the world would I expect you to understand sports medicine!

If you are savagely beating them on top of the simulated drowning, yes, it does make a difference, which doesn't feel the same to the victim as just the simulated drowning, and you know this.

No one has to be beating anybody. The Nazis put people on a sawhorse type of contraption and just easily rocked it back dunking the victims head into a tub of water. Stopping right before you completely suffocate someone with water isn't torture... you're absolutely ridiculous...

More questions that you haven't answered... Here are your two contradictory statements:

"we should treat them like POW's"
And,
"they need to be tried in some form to establish a proper punishment from continued incarceration all the way to the death penalty."

They were answered. I simply answered the WHOLE REALITY of this situation.

I said they should be treated while in captivity under the same human rights conditions as any POW would receive. And I also stated the obvious that since unlike a war declared against a country where there is a definitive winner, this made up "war on terror" will never ever be declared as over.

As such there has to be some kind of a trial system set up to dole out the proper punishment, maybe the death penalty or the amount of time to be spent in prison.

If you want them treated as POW's, we cannot put them on any kind of trial without charging them with war crimes.... So which is it...

Treated like POW's as far as physical treatment goes... no torture... and some type of trial even a military trial for people not picked up inside the US would be fine with me... so my answer is the best of both... hold the torture.

I think the obvious problem here is just simply you... most people can do more than one thing at once if it makes sense, walk & chew gum... that sort of thing.

Do you want them to have the rights of POW's or the rights of Common Criminals?

For the third time just in this post alone... read above.

The only time I'd insist on a full blown regular US criminal trial with all the rights that goes with it would be if someone was arrested inside the United States.

 

[GenSeneca]

To not be just a 100% total liar show us where I said I SUPPORT JUMPER CABLES ON THE GENITALS.

I asked for examples of acceptable interrogation techniques, putting electrodes (jumper cables) on genitals was one of the answers you gave...

You also thought putting dog collars around the necks of detainees would serve some purpose as an interrogation method but you've thus far refused to explain how such humiliation could produce information.

Treated like POW's as far as physical treatment goes... no torture... and some type of trial even a military trial for people not picked up inside the US would be fine with me... so my answer is the best of both... hold the torture.

Now you're agreeing that I was correct when I said, several times, you want them to be treate like POW's in some ways, but common criminals in others... And you were right there with the rest of the crybabies complaining about the military tribunals, you cheered when Obama put an end to them.

The problem you STILL have is that of finding a term that fits your concept of how you think they should be treated. POW doesn't work, you think "detainee" is a word created so we can "torture" people.... You pissed and moaned about how we "invented a new term" so we could treat them any way we wanted... well you're doing the same thing by demanding "the best of both" but you're not offering a term for the detainees.

You can't find a term in the GC or AFM that fits your concept, so what are you going to call those we pick up on the battlefield? Are you just going to "invent a new term" so you can treat them any way you want?

In related news:

Obama revives tribunals for Gitmo detainees

The president's decision to go forward with tribunals, though in a new way, puts him in the position of reviving a Bush-era trial system he once assailed as deeply flawed—and which he opposed as a senator.

 

[Dr.Who]

We used to try people for waterboarding POW's against the Rules of War.

Even if it is torture the perpetrators can only be convicted if they violated the rules of war. In the case of terrorists there are no rules of war so it is not against the law.

I would next point out that while waterboarding may have met the definition of torture back in 1946 it apparently does not meet the definition now since no physical harm is done and the mental harm is not long enough or sever enough to meet the current definition. In fact the procedure while very unpleasant causes no pain.

I have gone back and forth a couple of times now in thinking that it is torture or is not in the real world and not just on the law books. Now I am undecided. It does cause a real sensation of imminent death and drowning but no lasting physical harm or pain.

Christophe Hitchins was a reporter who volunteered to be waterboarded and after his first time he was embarrassed that he caved in only 12 seconds. because of his embarrassment he asked to be done again. he stated that after experiencing it, it was torture.

But he asked for it to be done again because he was embarrassed. So does that make it torture that is not legally torture but is not as bad as being embarrassed?

 

[GenSeneca]

Top Gun, lets review your position:

Q. What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

A. "anything up to the point of torture"

Q. What techniques would those be?

A. "The techniques laid out in the AFM and allowed by the GC"

Here is a new question for you:

Q. The Army Field Manual does not allow for any physical contact between the interrogator and his subject, do you think we should let interrogators go beyond the manual and have some form of physical contact?

 

[top gun]

I asked for examples of acceptable interrogation techniques, putting electrodes (jumper cables) on genitals was one of the answers you gave...

GO BACK AND POST WHERE I SAID WHAT YOU SAID I SAID... That I thought this was aceptable to do. You can't because you're a liar!

You also thought putting dog collars around the necks of detainees would serve some purpose as an interrogation method but you've thus far refused to explain how such humiliation could produce information.

NEVER SAID THAT EITHER! You asked for things that were "ALMOST" torture. I said that was a STUPID question because it could be almost anything until it got up to a certain level of pain. Furthermore I never said wearing dog collars would serve any purpose at all... only that it wasn't torture.

SO SHOW US WERE I SAID WHAT YOU'VE SAID I SAID. You can't because you are again a liar.

Now you're agreeing that I was correct when I said, several times, you want them to be treate like POW's in some ways, but common criminals in others... And you were right there with the rest of the crybabies complaining about the military tribunals, you cheered when Obama put an end to them.

NEVER SAID THAT EITHER! You're just talking a lot of trash... sack up, be a man and either admit you intentionally misquoted what I said or just simply go back and post it. And yet again you can't because you are simply a blatant liar.

I've always held this same position and could care less if that's been your position also in the past. The fact is you can't pull up one single post were I said the trial had to be in US courts or I bashed military tribunals... not one. You can't because you know it's not there.

The problem you STILL have is that of finding a term that fits your concept of how you think they should be treated. POW doesn't work, you think "detainee" is a word created so we can "torture" people.... You pissed and moaned about how we "invented a new term" so we could treat them any way we wanted... well you're doing the same thing by demanding "the best of both" but you're not offering a term for the detainees.

I'm saying the exact same thing I've said throughout. That POW's... detainees... captured enemy combatants... WHATEVER... should be pysically held, treated and interogated in line with the Geneva Convention and the Army's Military Field Manual.

And at some point since this type of "war" will never completely end we need to go to through some form of a trial to finalize an appropriate sentence, from prison terms all the way to the death penalty.

You would be easily able to find me saying that... simply because I've said it repeatedly.

BOTTOM LINE: You've been proven to repeatedly, purposely & directly misquote (not mischaracterize) misquote and that makes you a liar.

But America started seeing through your Karl Rove ways with the character assassinations and just plain lying and they have kicked the Republicants to the curb the last two elections... and you will continue to lose until your side finally sees Americans are sick to death of your BS.

You are beaten...

 

[top gun]

We used to try people for waterboarding POW's against the Rules of War.

Even if it is torture the perpetrators can only be convicted if they violated the rules of war. In the case of terrorists there are no rules of war so it is not against the law.

I would next point out that while waterboarding may have met the definition of torture back in 1946 it apparently does not meet the definition now since no physical harm is done and the mental harm is not long enough or sever enough to meet the current definition. In fact the procedure while very unpleasant causes no pain.

I have gone back and forth a couple of times now in thinking that it is torture or is not in the real world and not just on the law books. Now I am undecided. It does cause a real sensation of imminent death and drowning but no lasting physical harm or pain.

Christophe Hitchins was a reporter who volunteered to be waterboarded and after his first time he was embarrassed that he caved in only 12 seconds. because of his embarrassment he asked to be done again. he stated that after experiencing it, it was torture.

But he asked for it to be done again because he was embarrassed. So does that make it torture that is not legally torture but is not as bad as being embarrassed?

You must understand that there is a spirit to the law. There was a reason why waterboarding was considered a torture method and people were executed for using it.

It has been acknowledged that Bush quite possibly did find the loopholes he needed for he and his henchmen to avoid prosecution.

That in absolutely no way means it was the right thing to do. All it means is that loophole needed filled.

I would call the exact kind of waterboarding we did torture if any enemy did it to my wife when she served in Army Intelligence or my best friends son who's now done 3 tours in Iraq and 1 in Kuwait.

If it's torture in my opinion for them to do it to us then being an honest person it has to be torture for us to do it to them plain and simple.

As far as the Hitchins thing that's completely different and you can of course understand why. BECAUSE HE COULD CALL IT OFF AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCEDURE.

Anyone can stand almost anything for a couple seconds if they know they have the power to say stop... and it immediately stops for good. You can see that can't you?

You saw the Abu Grabe photos and there are more much worse ones of interrogations and prisoner treatment that President Obama has decided not to release because it's been determined that they are so bad it would actually put our troops in the field at much more of a risk.

Please don't fall for this... We always do things right, we never over step when we are angry or agitated. Because we definitely do sometimes. My wife has many stories of purposeful military misdirection of information to the public from being inside and knowing it was all reverse spin.

You just can't give permission to cross that line to torture as an OK thing... it will always be abused.

I appreciate you weighing this out though... I really do.