What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[top gun]

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?

The Army Field Manual is set up as only the FIRST line of interogation. However after the subjects are out of the field camps and into a prison interrogation setting I personally have no real problem with a push or a slap but in general I believe these Geneva Convention standards should be met.

Here's an overview:

The 1929 version of the Geneva Convention was not perfect. Some armies participating in World War II either blatantly disregarded it, or leapt upon vulgar interpretations of it to justify war crimes.

Ironically, one of the issues the 1949 version of the Geneva Convention on POWs needed to address was the availability of the Convention to POWs who had committed war crimes as Nazi war criminals facing conviction for in Nuremberg, 1946, sought the protection of the Geneva Convention.

The 1949 version of the Geneva Convention ("Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949") and two addendums dated 1977, built on the experiences of World War II (WW2 Japanese POWs in picture) and contained most of the above and the following additional articles of international law:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Any destruction of property must be justified by military necessity and civilians are not to be subjected to indiscriminate military attack.
Biological or chemical weapons are prohibited as is the use of children under 15 within the armed forces.

But as long as there are wars and lawyers, the treaties and protection of prisoners of war will require constant supervision. Loopholes abound.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Army Field Manual is set up as only the FIRST line of interogation. However after the subjects are out of the field camps and into a prison interrogation setting I personally have no real problem with a push or a slap but in general I believe these Geneva Convention standards should be met.

You believe the GC standards should be met... Problem is they don't allow for what you've advocated.

Prisoners of war

The GC has very specific standards as to who qualifies as a POW, the people we pick up meet NONE of those requirements.

prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

A "push or a slap" is most certainly intimidation, possibly an act of violence, and therefore against the GC.

Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

You can't even threaten or insult the person you're interrogating, much less push or slap them. No "unpleasant treatment" can be met out to a POW...

So... If you designate them as POW's a few things happen:

1. The method of interrogation would be severely limited and considerably less harsh than those used on common criminals here in the states.
2. As a POW, they would get NO trial of any kind.*
3. As a POW, they would be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities.**

*Exceptions in the case of being charged with war crimes.
**Exceptions in the case of prisoner swaps.

Here's a listing of 5 star hotels so you can begin making reservations for everyone we pick up on the battlefield.

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

Oh, just like you... Its cute that you're so worked up...

You continually dished out the lies, mischaracterizations and misquotes, and no matter how many times I called you on them and asked you to stop, you kept doing it.... Since you didn't comply with my reasonable requests to act like an adult, I gave you a dose of the childish behavior you've been exhibiting the entire thread... but you can only dish it out, you cant take it... and then you exploded with the, "liar liar pants on fire!" tactic not seen since grade school...

and again you try to declare victory...

If you don't want people to lie about you and your positions, don't lie about them and their positions. Its that simple.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If you don't want people to lie about you and your positions, don't lie about them and their positions. Its that simple.

It should also be a.....

NOTE: To The DICK, Cheney[b][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs1_cnOFg6M[/url][/b]​

 

[Dr.Who]

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.[/COLOR]

Oh don't get me wrong. I never said I was right. But in a smoking gun scenario it is a necessary lesser of evils.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;96457]You believe the GC standards should be met... Problem is they don't allow for what you've advocated.

The GC has very specific standards as to who qualifies as a POW, the people we pick up meet NONE of those requirements.


A "push or a slap" is most certainly intimidation, possibly an act of violence, and therefore against the GC.


You can't even threaten or insult the person you're interrogating, much less push or slap them. No "unpleasant treatment" can be met out to a POW...

So... If you designate them as POW's a few things happen:

1. The method of interrogation would be severely limited and considerably less harsh than those used on common criminals here in the states.
2. As a POW, they would get NO trial of any kind.*
3. As a POW, they would be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities.**

*Exceptions in the case of being charged with war crimes.
**Exceptions in the case of prisoner swaps.

I said "I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PUSH OR A SLAP". If the choice is I have to allow TORTURE if I allow a push or slap in the face... then I'd have go without both.

The problem you have is you keep pushing the idea that NOTHING can be changed to the better... only TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE. That's ridiculous to any thinking person. We can (and now have under President Obama) a interrogation policy that can be more intense without going over the line to water suffocating someone with torture. That makes total sense.

The point is that there are ways to interrogate people without using torture. As others have shown several times now the police break tens of thousands of hardened criminals ever single day and they use the least abusive practices. Thinking about life in a 6 by 10 cell or the possibility of the death penalty tends to do that.

And I believe a POW situation can be somewhat more intense that that. Torture though should obviously be off the table.

Oh, just like you... Its cute that you're so worked up...

You continually dished out the lies, mischaracterizations and misquotes, and no matter how many times I called you on them and asked you to stop, you kept doing it.... Since you didn't comply with my reasonable requests to act like an adult, I gave you a dose of the childish behavior you've been exhibiting the entire thread... but you can only dish it out, you cant take it... and then you exploded with the, "liar liar pants on fire!" tactic not seen since grade school...

and again you try to declare victory...

Well first off there's an obvious huge difference between mischaracterization and directly & repeatedly misquoting because you're getting your a$$ handed to you by the real words. While everyone from time to time will mischaracterize another's position...

You my friend are an OUT AND OUT LIAR! And I posted the challenge to your DIRECT LIES and you shied away knowing yourself you are A LIAR CAUGHT.

People know, they saw it themselves, you were fronted way out... and that's a good thing.

And when you get caught out like that intentionally lying... you have no credability... you lose... case closed.

And as a informed side note: Even John McCain is against what you praise. But then he would know. He was a prisoner once.

 

[top gun]

Oh don't get me wrong. I never said I was right. But in a smoking gun scenario it is a necessary lesser of evils.

I know the smoking gun theory seems rational... until you break down what it really means.

If the ONLY case was that some terrible catastrophe would definitely happen if a particular person was not tortured... and that torture would without doubt bring forward the information needed to prevent said catastrophe it seems reasonable to use it on a POW... hell it sounds reasonable to use on any major violent criminal for that matter.

But the above scenario is not the true case at all. What happens is people who may or may not have information about a certain possible bad event would be rounded up and tortured in a fishing expedition hoping to find that one person or persons that actually did know something.

That's exactly why it's not legal in regular court. Not because some good & possibly very important information might from time to time be gleaned from it... but because you don't violate other people without that information while you are searching for someone who might.

You're a reasonable person. You can understand why that would be wrong.

There is no doubt whatsoever that not everyone tortured knows the answers to what was being asked.

I always try and put it into more personal terms because I think it's easy to look at these detainees as less than human as a group.

Let's say you are an American Hells Angel in an overseas chapter (I use this example because I have... let's say... some past experience with Outlaw Motorcycle gangs).

And this Hells Angel chapter you are in (not you specifically but the people you are in the club with... your club brothers are fire bombing rival gangs Club Houses and bars they frequent. Constantly gang fighting & shooting at people on the street... are huge drug traffickers who do about any brutal thing imaginable.

You wouldn't think it was right for the overseas authorities to drag in... you, your cousin, maybe your father, and all your closest friends and torture you all in the hope one of you may know something that would help them take down this terrible gang.

Of course not... because there are boundaries.

See that's the slippery slope to "smoking gun". The ends really do not out way the means in a civilized society.

The good people don't become the bad people themselves in the way they interrogate. They may act as bad people to infiltrate the real bad people to take them all down... but once in custody they don't torture detainees no matter how evil they may be.

 

[Dr.Who]

I know the smoking gun theory seems rational... until you break down what it really means.

If the ONLY case was that some terrible catastrophe would definitely happen if a particular person was not tortured... and that torture would without doubt bring forward the information needed to prevent said catastrophe it seems reasonable to use it on a POW... hell it sounds reasonable to use on any major violent criminal for that matter.

But the above scenario is not the true case at all. What happens is people who may or may not have information about a certain possible bad event would be rounded up and tortured in a fishing expedition hoping to find that one person or persons that actually did know something.

That's exactly why it's not legal in regular court. Not because some good & possibly very important information might from time to time be gleaned from it... but because you don't violate other people without that information while you are searching for someone who might.

You're a reasonable person. You can understand why that would be wrong.

There is no doubt whatsoever that not everyone tortured knows the answers to what was being asked.

I always try and put it into more personal terms because I think it's easy to look at these detainees as less than human as a group.

Let's say you are an American Hells Angel in an overseas chapter (I use this example because I have... let's say... some past experience with Outlaw Motorcycle gangs).

And this Hells Angel chapter you are in (not you specifically but the people you are in the club with... your club brothers are fire bombing rival gangs Club Houses and bars they frequent. Constantly gang fighting & shooting at people on the street... are huge drug traffickers who do about any brutal thing imaginable.

You wouldn't think it was right for the overseas authorities to drag in... you, your cousin, maybe your father, and all your closest friends and torture you all in the hope one of you may know something that would help them take down this terrible gang.

Of course not... because there are boundaries.

See that's the slippery slope to "smoking gun". The ends really do not out way the means in a civilized society.

The good people don't become the bad people themselves in the way they interrogate. They may act as bad people to infiltrate the real bad people to take them all down... but once in custody they don't torture detainees no matter how evil they may be.

I understand what you are saying and I actually agree except that what you say applied to the extreme would also eliminate pushing and slapping which you said you would allow. there is no perfect solution but taking all non-extreme arguments off the table we have to use some judgement and that is what we have now. Rules about who can be interrogated by whom under what circumstances. The rules were followed.

You would allow pushing and slapping. so supposed that one person slaps and uses 10grams of force then 15 ten 20 then 25...soon enough nothing has changed except the degree of pressure used. Thee would have been no qualitative change (only quantitative) but it would have moved from slapping to full force striking. Apply enough of those and it is torture.

By having a variety of limits we can arrive at a best solution. Those limits are no POW's and no citizens getting the interrogations. Only high level terrorists not regular terrorists. Only when less harsh techniques have failed. Only when there is an expectation of results. No soldiers delivering the interrogations. An executive order must authorize it. No permanent physical damage. No mental stress longer than 20 seconds. No expectation of execution, etc.

All were followed.

Waterboarding is very unpleasant and everyone caves. It makes one gag (not unlike what some people do willingly in their bedrooms) and feeling like drowning. But one knows that the interrogators have doctors on hand and are trying not to kill one. It is limited to 20 seconds during which everyone can hold ones breath though it still feels awful it does not meet the criteria for torture under current law. we do it to our own soldiers in training and a reporter volunteered to do it twice. I even heard radio pesonalites volunteering to do it yesterday on the radio. I have thought about having my wife do it to me. And as you say, all of these people know they can say "no" at any time and that makes a difference. But if the difference is that the terrorist cannot stop it at will that seems like a pretty minor difference to me. I went to a 90 minute time share demo twice and it was torture and lots of people buy just to get out of the meeting. That last sentence was just levity.

 

[top gun]

I understand what you are saying and I actually agree except that what you say applied to the extreme would also eliminate pushing and slapping which you said you would allow. there is no perfect solution but taking all non-extreme arguments off the table we have to use some judgement and that is what we have now. Rules about who can be interrogated by whom under what circumstances. The rules were followed.

You would allow pushing and slapping. so supposed that one person slaps and uses 10grams of force then 15 ten 20 then 25...soon enough nothing has changed except the degree of pressure used. Thee would have been no qualitative change (only quantitative) but it would have moved from slapping to full force striking. Apply enough of those and it is torture.

By having a variety of limits we can arrive at a best solution. Those limits are no POW's and no citizens getting the interrogations. Only high level terrorists not regular terrorists. Only when less harsh techniques have failed. Only when there is an expectation of results. No soldiers delivering the interrogations. An executive order must authorize it. No permanent physical damage. No mental stress longer than 20 seconds. No expectation of execution, etc.

All were followed.

Waterboarding is very unpleasant and everyone caves. It makes one gag (not unlike what some people do willingly in their bedrooms) and feeling like drowning. But one knows that the interrogators have doctors on hand and are trying not to kill one. It is limited to 20 seconds during which everyone can hold ones breath though it still feels awful it does not meet the criteria for torture under current law. we do it to our own soldiers in training and a reporter volunteered to do it twice. I even heard radio pesonalites volunteering to do it yesterday on the radio. I have thought about having my wife do it to me. And as you say, all of these people know they can say "no" at any time and that makes a difference. But if the difference is that the terrorist cannot stop it at will that seems like a pretty minor difference to me. I went to a 90 minute time share demo twice and it was torture and lots of people buy just to get out of the meeting. That last sentence was just levity.

And your last sentence WAS funny!

My point is that an interrogator pushing someone up against a wall or slapping (not hitting slapping) someone across the face is different... much much different than water torture.

To compare the two is like comparing little kids scuffling on the playground to the Rack.

Sure kids fighting on the playground might hurt each other a little. But when you bring out actual devises designed to torture someone... bind their arms & legs... stuff rags in or over their mouths and then pour water into those rags to both gag and stop all airflow (suffocation) which also causes water to enter the lungs. That's just not right.

The other points I'd like to make are these. You said quote, "Waterboarding is very unpleasant and everyone caves." One can't cave if they really don't know something. And it's positive not every torture candidate will know the answers to what is being asked.

And my final point would be these. The very fact that a doctor has to be present tells me that there is GREAT danger here. They don't have doctors present for non-torture interrogations.

And I can guarantee you this as well, that 20 second thing is the recommended time.

My turn to joke now... It's kinda like in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie where the Captain says the Pirate Code is more like "guidelines" than actual rules...

20 seconds didn't get the answer so now maybe I forget to check the clock, I'll just be sure not kill him. These things happen in war and interrogations all the time. And if it was being done to us or our loved ones we'd be screaming bloody murder.

We don't need it. We don't have to be pleasent... but America doesn't dignify torture.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Waterboarding is very unpleasant and everyone caves.

.....Which is what The DICK; Cheney was depending-upon.....that waterboarding would verify that Saddam Hussein was tied-into 9/11.

​

 

[Dr.Who]

Top,

Thanks for all the thought provoking back and forth.

I suspect that this topic has been exhausted for me. I just don't know what else to say. Maybe someone will post something here that will warrant a response. for now I suspect I have heard you out, I understand and agree with most of what you say, I just come to a different conclusion. I don't like the interrogation but I can't see a government not doing it under the right circumstances. The trick will be making sure that a government does not do it under the wrong.

 

[GenSeneca]

The problem you have is you keep pushing the idea that NOTHING can be changed to the better... only TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE.

You are soooo adorable... Like a rambunctious little child flailing about, I just want to pinch your chubby little cheeks and pat you on the head. (But you'd just call that "torture" and demand I be tried for war crimes)

So far, you've been unable to answer simple questions, such as: What designation will you give the people we pick up on the battlefield?

You've been unable to explain away, or even rationalize, the many contradictions put forth by your positions, such as: You want them to be treated like POW's... but you also want them to have trials... problem is POW's don't get trials... and you also want to interrogate them with some physical contact... but POW's are precluded from being interrogated with physical contact...

...And when called to task on these inconsistancies in your position, the best you can do is attempt to shift the topic away from your position to an appeal to ridicule against my position (Which you lie about in order to argue against the strawman), and you repeatedly claim victory in hopes that others will ignore your inability to maintain a consistant position and your equal inability to participate in the discussion as a rational adult.

If indeed lying about someone elses position caused them to lose the argument, then you lost with your very first post. I didn't design this thread as an argument to be won or lost, because I didn't want to argue with children over who can cry the loudest about morality... I was very specific in the creation of this thread because I wanted to have a serious discussion, with rational adults, on the very difficult topic of finding acceptable interrogation techniques. There are no winners or losers in such a discussion, just personal opinions as to acceptable and unacceptable techniques to be offered.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If indeed lying about someone elses position caused them to lose the argument, then you lost with your very first post. I didn't design this thread as an argument to be won or lost, because I didn't want to argue with children over who can cry the loudest about morality... I was very specific in the creation of this thread because I wanted to have a serious discussion, with rational adults, on the very difficult topic of finding acceptable interrogation techniques.

That "book"'s already been WRITTEN! (...By someone who knows what he's doing.)

There's nothing TO discuss!!!!!

You ENJOY being ignorant/behind-the-curve?????

​

 

[GenSeneca]

That "book"'s already been WRITTEN! (...By someone who knows what he's doing.)

There's nothing TO discuss!!!!!

You ENJOY being ignorant/behind-the-curve?????
​

Do you have the crayon sharpener built right into the box or what?

Mr. Shaman (intellectual leader of the Progressives here on the forum) has just made a fallacious argument... an appeal to authority. By claiming that some authority on the subject has undertaken all the thought necessary in discussing the topic, Shaman excuses himself from the burdonsome process of thinking. In his case, I can see why.

 

[The Scotsman]

I don't like the interrogation but I can't see a government not doing it under the right circumstances.

.......fair point.

The trick will be making sure that a government does not do it under the wrong.

........presumably that wouldn't be a problem either? Dunking some muslim sand skunks' head under water in another country is the whole point isn't it? plausable deniability! That was the whole point of Gitmo, do it offshore so there's no nasty questions requiring truthful answers, at least then no one can come back and sh1t on your lawn... so carry on regardless all rose tinted and blued eyed and damn the consequenses?

Generally I find it interesting that many people like to hide behind this veneer of respectability instead just admitting the facts of life and getting on with the job. Its been said that its' extremely un-American to torture! you give up the moral highground and become no worse than those that would trespass against you and indeed it becomes a rallying cry to combatants yadda yadda .......well......horsepucky to that!

Look the facts of life are pretty simple. Outside your front door life sucks and like us in the UK you guys have been involved with some pretty hardcore down right nasty sh!tty stuff in the past and admitting it is the first stage to accepting that sometimes a bit of slap and tickle is just a starting point. MACV didn't go through vietnam without ruffling a few hem lines and ripping open the odd throat here or there! I think the best option for those with a wobbly constitution should just accept that when men with sticks start swiping at each other then someones going to have a cr4ppy day........so turn to the sports pages or cookery section or stare serenely out the window but when trained killers meet trained killers iys not to discuss knitting patterns over tea and muffins.

 

[top gun]

You are soooo adorable... Like a rambunctious little child flailing about, I just want to pinch your chubby little cheeks and pat you on the head. (But you'd just call that "torture" and demand I be tried for war crimes)

You already lost about three posts ago when my words had you so knocked out you had to change them to try and save face.

It was very simple to understand... that's why you lied and changed my words thinking I wouldn't call you out on it. The Current POW protections under the Geneva Convention and IF we were going to use ANY enhanced interrogation techniques it wouldn't be anymore than things like pushing a suspect up against a wall or a slap in the face... no water torture or torture of any kind.

So your insults now mean nothing... that's all you ever really had in the first place. Maybe try again on another subject... but if you're stupid enough to lie in print you'll just get caught again & you'll suffer the same fate... fate of a loser!