Torture vs. Interrogation

[Professor S]

I wanted to as this question, because I hear a lot of people in the news and otherwise discussing enhanced interrogation as torture. The following is described as enhanced interrogation by SERE: (Survival , Evasion, Resistance and Escape). Most of these, if not all were prohibited by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act:

Prolonged isolation
Prolonged sleep deprivation
Sensory deprivation
Extremely painful "stress positions"
Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights)
Forced nakedness
Sexual humiliation
Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures)
Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia
Exploitation of phobias
Simulation of the experience of drowning, i.e., waterboarding.

So my questions is this: You have an enemy who has information you need to save lives and he refuses to share what he knows. How do you get it?

If you would like, you can reference the 2006 Army Field Manual.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf

[manasecret]

At first I'd like to point out, as it's not immediately obvious, that the SERE you reference was originally developed as a training program for soldiers to resist such types of "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" when it is done to them. It is not a training program on how to perform such tactics. Developed during the Korean War and extended to the Vietnam War, such tactics were used against our soldiers to torture fake confessions out of them in order to bolster their propaganda.

I'd call it torture, since from my general knowledge I think psychological torture is just as harmful if not more harmful than the standard run-of-the-mill physical torture. Calling it anything else to me is just trying to make it sound more benign so that it's easier to argue that it's ok, since "we're not talking about torture here, this is ok!"

[Professor S]

At first I'd like to point out, as it's not immediately obvious, that the SERE you reference was originally developed as a training program for soldiers to resist such types of "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" when it is done to them. It is not a training program on how to perform such tactics. Developed during the Korean War and extended to the Vietnam War, such tactics were used against our soldiers to torture fake confessions out of them in order to bolster their propaganda.

I'd call it torture, since from my general knowledge I think psychological torture is just as harmful if not more harmful than the standard run-of-the-mill physical torture. Calling it anything else to me is just trying to make it sound more benign so that it's easier to argue that it's ok, since "we're not talking about torture here, this is ok!"

I mention SERE because that is what is most often referenced when discussing enhnced interrogation techniques.

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?

[Bond]

Well, the founding fathers warned against suspending civil liberties in times of war. But, if one looks back to our history of military conflict, liberties have been suspended during nearly every single conflict. It's certainly a complex issue.

My understanding is that these tactics were not used to learn past information, but rather to learn intelligence that would assist the military in the future.

[manasecret]

I mention SERE because that is what is most often referenced when discussing enhnced interrogation techniques.

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?

The same way they've done it for decades - without torture. Good-cop, bad-cop (or good-soldier, bad-soldier, if you prefer). Just look at the Army Field Manual you provided yourself. Trying to extract information from someone who doesn't want to give it is nothing new.

My guess is you have an agenda with this thread, so get with it already. :lol:

[Professor S]

The same way they've done it for decades - without torture. Good-cop, bad-cop (or good-soldier, bad-soldier, if you prefer). Just look at the Army Field Manual you provided yourself. Trying to extract information from someone who doesn't want to give it is nothing new.

My guess is you have an agenda with this thread, so get with it already. :lol:

You do know that during WW2 many of our GI's were trained on how to interrogate using the battery of their field telephones, right?

But beyond this, you do good cop bad cop, and they don't give up the information as many simple criminals don't when interrogated using those methods, especially if they must be goven ample amounts of sleep and comfortable living conditions (our own accused criminals often don't get that). Then what?

My agenda is that there needs to be an answer to a real situtation, not simply a criticism. Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working. So if you remove certain techniques, how then do you get the information you need if approved techniques don't work?

[manasecret]

My agenda is that there needs to be an answer to a real situtation, not simply a criticism. Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working. So if you remove certain techniques, how then do you get the information you need if approved techniques don't work?

Proof? And I don't mean Dick Cheney's assertions. :p

Pretty much all that I've heard in recent reports, now that much of the Bush era people and memos are coming out and speaking up, are saying that torture wasn't needed, and that we were getting information without torture. Not to mention, much like regular physical torture, they all seem to say that "enhanced techniques" don't get you the facts, it just forces the one being abused to tell you what you want to hear.

[Professor S]

From what I understood from the memos was that there was an escalation of interrogation tactics. They didn't simply start out with waterboarding, but instead there were opinions asked for and received each time a enhanced technique was suggested. I did not read the memos word for word, so I may be incorrect in my extrapolation, though.

To say that there was not a escalation of tecniques used, does not follow the evidence in the memos as I understand them, and also makes the supposition that the CIA and other interrogator's aim was to be sadistic, and not to gain information through the simplest means posible (those means that did not require legal opinion) and then escalate the means depending on the results of previous techniques.

Also, we have to recognize that waterboarding was done to three people, who were all of a high level within the enemy organization, which increase the chances that they had sensitive informaation that they refused to share. If it was the CIA's normal methods, wouldn't far more detainees have been waterboarded?

Myself, I'm curious to see if and when the memos and evidence regarding the results of the interrogations are released, and what they say. I am conflicted over waterboarding as while it is without a doubt an extraordinarily unpleasant experience, it does not cause pain or mutilate. Also, the detainees were told ahead of time that they would not die as a resut. So to me when you say waterboarding is torture, its lumping it into the realm of castration, bone breaking, pulling out fingernails, etc. I think that diminishes the word. Is it legal or moral? That's another issue.

Personally, if the documents regarding waterboarding show it to be an affective means of extracting information (all evidence to this point for and against the technique has been completely anecdotal), I would still be tolerant of it's use in extreme situations, but not as a normal part of interrogating. If it proves to be ineffective (meaning in full transparency there is no evicence it supplied crucial intel) I see no reason the ever do it again.

[Ric]

I was going to say 'use whatever means necessary, smash their faces in, pull their teeth out, fuck the geneva convention, torture the basterd... in a war situation anyway' and I kind of think that sometimes if I am being honest.

But after taking a step back and thinking about it I remembered something, something very prominent in the U.K, November 5th. Bonfires and fireworks and shit in rememberance of 'The Gunpowder Plot' when a man named Guy Fawkes or Guido Fawkes allegedly tried to blow up the houses of parliament.

Check out his signature both before -
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/graphics/graphics.nsf/graphics/GuyFawkesSignatureBeforeTortureOther/$file/GuyFawkesSignatureBeforeTortureOther.jpg
And after torture -
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fileadmin/historyLearningSite/gunpow2.gif
I researched this years ago as part of a school history project and it still leads me to think that a man would sign anything after being tortured and if he didn't then it was more than likely because, he was dead.

Now just to make some comments on some of the initial points.

Prolonged isolation - Not torture in my mind, some people like it.
Prolonged sleep deprivation - One of the ultimate and worst forms of mental torture known to Ric ;)
Sensory deprivation - jedi training
Extremely painful "stress positions" - ouch... torture, the same as beating someone up
Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights) - sounds like a nightclub not torture :p (torture really!)
Forced nakedness - can be embarassing but you can always embrace it :lol: not torture
Sexual humiliation - what you mean rape and shit? Torture man.
Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures) - not torture, take it like a man, you are in prison.
Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia - torture
Exploitation of phobias - not torture, some people do this to overcome their phobias, it's just mean, funny if you do it to someone though. Go on go and get a spider and take it to your mum :lol:
Simulation of the experience of drowning, i.e., waterboarding. - torture

In conclusion I dont know really, it depends what one considers torture. And in which situations it should be used but then as I said, is torture the best way or will a man succumb to anything after torture?

What are yout thoughts on using Sodium Penthanol (Truth Serum) and a lie detector, even at the same time?

EDIT: We all know the CIA are, to coin the phrase, 'as bent as a nine bob note anyway' (i.e a £9 or $9 note) so of course they have broken human rights treaties etc as I am sure many other organisations across the globe have done.

[Bond]

I suppose the real question is: does the Constitution / rule of law apply to enemy combatants, depending upon where they are located, which is a question I am not able to fully answer. If the rule of law does apply, then we must treat these enemy combatants as any other citizen. If the rule of law does not apply, then I believe using any means necessary to protect our people is appropriate.

[Ric]

I suppose the real question is: does the Constitution / rule of law apply to enemy combatants, depending upon where they are located, which is a question I am not able to fully answer. If the rule of law does apply, then we must treat these enemy combatants as any other citizen. If the rule of law does not apply, then I believe using any means necessary to protect our people is appropriate.

The troble is you can never tell when you have in fact got the wrong guy. What If? you know... what if? which brings me again to the point in my earlier post, I believe a man would sign a document saying he was the devil incarnate come to destroy the world if tortured enough (would sign anything) It depends in some way how much the torturer wants the torturee to confess.

As far as I know a soldier is a soldier wherever he is in the world and is a representitive of the army and thus the country he is serving, as said representitive he is restricted to the same laws as anyone else of that country. No one is above or below the law. I can not comment on the US constituion though as I have little knowledge of it, I live in the UK, it does not apply to me.

[Professor S]

I suppose the real question is: does the Constitution / rule of law apply to enemy combatants, depending upon where they are located, which is a question I am not able to fully answer. If the rule of law does apply, then we must treat these enemy combatants as any other citizen. If the rule of law does not apply, then I believe using any means necessary to protect our people is appropriate.

Well, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 technically squashes that argument. It states all un-unifirmed combatants, insurgents, etc. are protected under the Geneva convention, which falls under the Treaty portion of the Costitution's executive powers. I disagree with it in principle, but it is what it is.

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

My question is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work.

[Ric]

My questions is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work.

To me what that says is if you tell the captive what you are going to do to them first then it's not torture. So if I had a captive and said I am gonna start cutting your nuts off untill you tell me what I want to know then done it then it's not torture, too extreme? what if I said I would punch them in the face until they told me what I wanted to know, then done it, would that not be torture because I told them first?

I honestly believe waterboarding is torture. Do you honestly believe prisoners are told what is going to happen first? If they were they would just endure it. If they dont know then they will fear they might drown and so will be more likely confess.

[Professor S]

Well, not really. The definition of torture ( that can be prosecuted in the US) is to cause physical pain, multilation or to psychologically torture with that definition being to instill the fear of death in the efforts to gain information. Also, intent to torture is a part of that as well, but we'll leave that part out for the sake of this discussion.

So why waterboarding is such a grey area is because it meets none of those criteria when you tell the detainee beforehand they will not die. Once you remove the fear of death, it ceases being torture, technically speaking because it doesn't case any pain and does not mutilate. As for whether or not they were "really" told, all we know is that the interrogators were instructed to tell the detainees they would not be killed. Other than that, we don't know as there is no evidence to the contrary.

I imagine they would tell them, because the technique has proven to instill severe panic regardess of the conditions it is presented in, so why not cover your ass? I listened to a local radio sho where a DJ was brought to tears when he was waterboarded with kool aid for only a minute or so. The technique apparently plays on an inherent reaction to drowning that kicks in regardless of your knowledge.

[Bond]

Well, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 technically squashes that argument. It states all un-unifirmed combatants, insurgents, etc. are protected under the Geneva convention, which falls under the Treaty portion of the Costitution's executive powers. I disagree with it in principle, but it is what it is.

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

My question is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work.
Well, then here is what I would say (which is what I believe you're saying). We should air on the side of caution, and regard waterboarding as torture. So, as torture, it (and other practices), should not be used under normal circumstances. If there is an imminent threat to our country, then it seems reasonable to violate an enemy combatant's liberties for the protection of our people.

[Professor S]

Seems reasonable to me, but I'd like there to continue to be some checks and balances. If someone does call for the "nuclear option", I think that it needs to have Presidential approval for highest acountability, and rare enough that such a responsibility would not encumber the president.

After those thresholds are met, Jack Bauer the motherf**ker.

[Typhoid]

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?


I don't know, how do the police get it out of mass murderers?
Last I checked they didn't waterboard them or isolate them for days on end.
Oh, hey - massive extentsive interrogation.


Torture is torture. Call it what you want, and slap a pretty little sticker on it, but it's still torture. If you need information, that doesn't make it right to do that to another human being. Even if the human being is/has/plans to kill other people.


Interrogation is good for eventually getting the answer out of someone.
Torture is good for getting them to say what you want them to say.

[TheGame]

You guys should watch the hearings they will have about this topic, the experts in general say that it does not work. I've yet to see anyone present a good example of when it worked and gave reliable information.

[BreakABone]

I will say that it always works for Jack Bauer so it can't be all wrong.

On a more serious note even without a fear of death, I think exerting a certain amount of power over someone can technically be considered psychological torture as you are pretty much telling them they would be meant with this treatment unless they tell you what you want to hear.

And I think that may be my issue with torture as it is with therapy is that you may bring up memories or events that never really occurred because of the relationship you develop with the other individual,

[Professor S]

You guys should watch the hearings they will have about this topic, the experts in general say that it does not work. I've yet to see anyone present a good example of when it worked and gave reliable information.

I'm aware of what the experts say on both sides, but as I stated earlier, it's mainly anecdotal evidence. A lot of the testimony against is also about torture in general, and not waterboarding specifically. I'd like to see the specifics from internal documents and memos and get some real clarity on this episode.

I'm not orthodox on this issue by any means. I just want to see the results of the waterboardings on the three detainees before passing my final judgment. Whether or not these activities garnered any significant results is what would sway me from reluctantly accepting a controversial technique and wanting it abolished.

[Vampyr]

You never use those methods. Period. We, as Americans, should not use those methods. They are torture - it's actually NOT a complex question.

First of all, the methods don't work. Second of all, you have NO IDEA if the what the person said is true, or they just said it to make you stop.

For me this doesn't even need observing, analyzing, or thinking about - the answer is pretty clear cut: the greatest country in the world (no offense to Canadians) doesn't torture people.

The whole thing reeks of past scenarios like the spanish inquisition. They thought what they were doing was 'getting the answers they absolutely needed' too.

And people who pose the question, "What if you HAD to do it to save lives" are trying to trick the person into trying to answer an impossible question.

[Bond]

You do realize that Obama retained the right to use these tactics in the future if he deems it necessary, right?

[Typhoid]

You do realize that Obama retained the right to use these tactics in the future if he deems it necessary, right?


Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.

[Bond]

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about the previous accounts of torture.
I didn't know this was yet another "Obama's not different" thread.
I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

[Professor S]

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact. Ending comments with "Period" or "This is that and thats it" don't make your opinion any more valid, especially when the evidence that would answer the debate is still classified. So far we've only seen exactly what they want you to see, and I find it hard to come to a conclusion when half of the evidence may be under lock and key.

This is a complex issue for the reasons I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread, and it would become even more complex if we are ever attacked again. Can you feel strongly? Yes, but to claim this is black and white doesn't reflect enlightenment, it only frees you from having to think about the subject any further.

[TheGame]

I think this whole debate has taken a very poor turn. It seems that people no longer want to debate the merits of arguments, but instead simply want to make blanket statements of opinion pretending to be fact.

Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working.

The only time I heard of a legit situation where the "existing techniques" not working, is when they were pushing harder and harder to get a non existent link between Iraq and 9-11. Care to share with us some other factual situations in which less image-destroying teqniques didn't help, but torture helped?

If not, why were you making a blanket statement of opinion pretending that it is a fact?

[KillerGremlin]

Obviously torture does work otherwise this wouldn't be a debate. This part of the issue I never understood. However, torture does not work well and it is not ethical.

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

I do agree that we need stricter regulation. But who watches the CIA? :ohreilly:

[Typhoid]

I think that comment was a little less than fair. I simply wanted to point out that Obama has not absolved the use of these tactics, but rather suspended their practice, with the possibility of reinstating them if he deems it necessary in the future.

He hasn't absolved them yet because nobody "high up" (Other than, you know - the U.N) has deemed these tactics to be torture yet. So if he is able to do these things in the future and get his scapegoats, why wouldn't he?

Not to mention it would be in relatively poor taste for a newly appointed President to jump right up and say "Yes, what my predecessor did was torture."

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.

[TheGame]

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.

I do agree that we need stricter regulation. But who watches the CIA? :ohreilly:

Honestly, you're right about the big grey area. But I think if we were going to torture, don't use something that the world has long known to be torture.. or something that our own country complained about being done to us before.

If you're going to bend the rules to get info, then do something that's technically not covered by the rules to begin with. So if you get caught, then you can say "I didn't know it was torture! Sorry we will never do it again!"... instead of being caught red handed doing something that has been done before.

[Typhoid]

What is the difference between torture and interrogation...a whole bunch of gray area I suppose and a lot of slippery slope arguments.



Really?
I mean, I know people are going to say "blah blah blah dictionary blah blah blah" to me - but this is what the two mean.


Interrogation:
1. the act of interrogating; questioning.
2. an instance of being interrogated: He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3. a question; inquiry.
4. a written list of questions.
5. an interrogation point; question mark.


Torture
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

[Bond]

Just because Obama hasn't absolved it, doesn't mean it still isn't torture.
Hell, even if the US government decided it's not torture - that doesn't mean it's not torture.
I don't believe I ever insinuated that - I was simply stating a fact.

[Typhoid]

I don't believe I ever insinuated that - I was simply stating a fact.

Obama also hasn't ended the wars going on.
That doesn't mean he's in agreeance with them.

[Ric]

Well, not really. The definition of torture ( that can be prosecuted in the US) is to cause physical pain, multilation or to psychologically torture with that definition being to instill the fear of death in the efforts to gain information.

I understand that by U.S law it (waterboarding) is not classed as torture but you origionally asked wether I considered it to be torture or not and the answer was yes.


Besides that to quote 'to instill the fear of death in the efforts to gain information'

Kind of makes two of your next points contradict eachother

So why waterboarding is such a grey area is because it meets none of those criteria when you tell the detainee beforehand they will not die.

Really

I listened to a local radio sho where a DJ was brought to tears when he was waterboarded with kool aid for only a minute or so. The technique apparently plays on an inherent reaction to drowning that kicks in regardless of your knowledge.

Fear of death by drowning perhaps? Natural instinct.

Once you remove the fear of death, it ceases being torture, technically speaking because it doesn't case any pain and does not mutilate.

How, pray tell would you remove one's fear of death. I dont imagine prisoners believe their captors every word? You would not ever really know what to expect in that situation. Also if someone is not scared of dying, as in I have 'removed their fear' and then I strap a car battery to their bollocks then it is not torture because I have removed his fear of death right? :ohreilly: Instilling fear of death is mental pain which is as bad as if not worse than physical pain.


Also, intent to torture is a part of that as well, but we'll leave that part out for the sake of this discussion.

Bearing in mind I consider waterboarding as torture lets not. If you tell someone you are about to torture them, then torture them, then you are torturing them.

I realise that I am picking apart what U.S law says here more than anything but I thought our opinions were the whole point of the thread? So you know I dont mean to seem like I am personally digging at you but you just got me started is all ;)

[Bond]

Obama also hasn't ended the wars going on.
That doesn't mean he's in agreeance with them.
I don't understand why you are trying to put words in my mouth. I was simply stating a fact concerning what President Obama did in regard to the interrogation techniques. I did not pass judgment or state what his opinion was on the matter, but simply stated a fact.

[Typhoid]

I don't understand why you are trying to put words in my mouth. I was simply stating a fact concerning what President Obama did in regard to the interrogation techniques. I did not pass judgment or state what his opinion was on the matter, but simply stated a fact.

It's that the fact has no purpose in the conversation and just seemed like a complete attempt to "slander" him by saying he hasn't taken an opposing stance to Bush.

I'm not a giant Obama-fan, but I'm just getting sick of the constant (not on these boards, in general) needless pointing out of things to do with Obama, that took place during Bush's "reign".

[Bond]

It's that the fact has no purpose in the conversation and just seemed like a complete attempt to "slander" him by saying he hasn't taken an opposing stance to Bush.

I'm not a giant Obama-fan, but I'm just getting sick of the constant (not on these boards, in general) needless pointing out of things to do with Obama, that took place during Bush's "reign".
Well, then I am happy to bear the brunt of your misdirected anger.

Certainly Obama is taking a different stance than the Bush Administration, although I am not quite sure if it is opposite. I do believe the fact that Obama has put these kinds of tactics in reserve (most likely for a situation that we have talked about previously) is important to this conversation.

Surprisingly, I actually like Obama, although I rarely agree with him on most policy issues. I still think it is important to be critical when evaluating the course he is taking our country, though. I don't think this interrogation / torture debate is quite as black and white as some make it out to be. Certainly it is an easy discussion to have in a time of peace (or at least the appearance of peace). But, when a country is under attack, and a war is being waged, the rules of the game change, they always have, and practically speaking, they always will. This does not make what is done right or wrong, but we must be able to address these practical challenges that will inevitably be faced, and not an ideal situation.

Edit: And if you don't wish to have a conversation concerning the future, and Obama's role, then let us have a conversation concerning the past, and Bush's role. The events of 9/11 were quite startling at the time. Now, in retrospect, they seem less-so, but let us look back. It was the largest attack on American soil in the history of our country in terms of lives lost, and it dealt a serious blow to our financial and economic markets and greater stability. The former administration, faced with an enemy they knew little about, had a necessity to gain intelligence on this enemy. It was apparent that the terrorists had infiltrated our country, and it was difficult to ascertain quite how far that infiltration went.

Another attack on American soil, on par with the attacks of 9/11, would not have only brought down the world's confidence in America's physical protection, but it would have also sent our domestic economy into a severe recession or depression. In turn, this would have sent the world economy into a severe downturn, leading to great instability. This was a very serious and real potential outcome.

It seems that a reasonable leader, given the duty to protect our citizens with the full might of our power, while also protecting our liberties, would indeed sacrifice the liberties (that we would bestow upon) of an enemy combatant to save thousands of American lives and perhaps the greater economic stability of the world. This seems rational and reasonable. Is it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But if one looks throughout history the liberties of a few have always been compromised in order to sustain the liberties of many. Again, is that right? Perhaps, but it is what it is. And we've only touched the surface with this discussion, which I think is very complex, and not at all easy.

I have personally not passed judgement one way or another, as I do not believe all the evidence is readily available to us, and I also believe we must give history more time to bear out fact from fiction.

[Professor S]

Ric, my statements were about the legality of waterboarding and it's definition as torture, not whether or not you can personally define it as torture. I apologize if I confused the two. Anyone can view waterboarding as torture if they like, and I can subjectively disagree with your subjective definition, but the only concrete idea that the law can act on it is the legal definition of torture. My intent was not to contradict the validity of our personal opinion, only that the issue is not as legally black and white and it is in your opinion.

Thats where we come into an interesting conumdrum when it coms to waterboarding: Waterboarding was defined as torture or more clearly as illegal interrogation techniques in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and banned from use, but yet waterboarding is not technically an illegal act. Meaning: you can not prosecute someone if they follow the steps laid out in the memos. At least that's what I took from skimming through the Act. I did not read it in it's entirety, so I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong on that account if I missed misread something.

[Professor S]

The only time I heard of a legit situation where the "existing techniques" not working, is when they were pushing harder and harder to get a non existent link between Iraq and 9-11. Care to share with us some other factual situations in which less image-destroying teqniques didn't help, but torture helped?

If not, why were you making a blanket statement of opinion pretending that it is a fact?

I think I already discussed and clarified the statement you decided to cherry pick in multiple paragraphs in my discussion with Manasecret. But if I must, let me correct it to reflect my opinion.

"...the problem that existing techniques were not likely working, IMO"

Can we get back to the substance of the argument now, instead of playing gotcha games with sentences taken out of context when several paragraphs of context are available?

And I'll agree, with what we currently know about the use and results of the waterboarding, they were used on 3 high level enemy agents and at least part of it's use was to interrogate regarding ties to Iraq. Also, most of the evidence regarding the intent Iraq related questioning is based on opinion and anecdotes, and not hard facts or incriminating documents. As you know, there are almost just as many opinions and anecotes on the other side of this argument. You can choose to believe who you like. I choose to not fully believe anyone until we know more.

Also, considering Iraq's proven ties to various world terror group and the detainees sharing hate for America, I don't think the purpose of the waterboarding was necessarily an attempt to gain false evidence as you have supposed before, but instead it could have arguably been a reasonable line of questioning knowing what they knew at the time, as ethnocentric as that was. It wasn't until later the adminstration figured out that Islamic sects hated each other almost as much as they hated us.

But thats all we know. Most of the enlightening evidence in regards to this case is likely still under lock and key. We know how many times the detainees were waterboarded, and who was waterboardd, but we don't know the full line of questioning associated or the intent of it. We also don't know of any results other than that of the questioning regarding Iraq.

I reserve my judgement until we see more transparency regarding this results of the full range of interrogations and their results. Considering we've basically destroyed any level of secrecy regarding these methods, and our own president has condemned the previous adminstration as torturers, I fail to see any honest reason why the vast majority of these memos and documents haven't been released. Any potential national security theats resulting from their release have been realized, IMO.

[manasecret]

If waterboarding is legally wishy-washy whether it's torture or not, how was the U.S. then able to try and execute some Japanese for torture including waterboarding?

Republican presidential candidate John McCain (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/22/politics/main3193619.shtml) reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3554687

[TheGame]

I'll word it like you did then...

I belive that torture didn't have any positive impact on American national security, and know that it ruined our reputation with our allies and gave enemies another reason to attack us. Judging from most news reports that are out there, the testimony of Ali Soufan, and our presidents own words I think thisis a fair conclusion to come to. However, I'll hold my judgement for when there is more transparancy also.

I think that alternative methods of gathering intelegence other then using something that is defined as torture worked and kept us safe from attacks on our homeland for a very long time. I'm sure the intelegence was reported to the president August 6th 2001 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/) was done without using torture. And could have easilly been used to prevent most of everything that had happend conflict wise between 9-11-2001 and now. But, once again I'll hold my judgement for when there is more transparany and the hearings are over too.

I think if there was clear evidence for Cheany to point out that it did work, and did save lives.. He would have brought it up by now, or someone would have. But who knows, maybe someone will step up and come to the hearings who actually participated in it and tell the truth about it.

And even if the methods worked to some extent, I'd still be in disagreement with using those methods (especially waterboarding) since we know about its history and where it originated.

[Combine 017]

Wow, ive never seen a thread jump to 3 pages so fast. I must say, im impressed.

[Professor S]

Manasecret, the key to the statements you quoted are that they waterboarded along with other techniques. The other methods may have played a significant factor to the executions, depending on what they are. I know the Japanese did far more heinous activities than waterboard. Even beyond thosse questions, laws can change and often do in 50 or so years. The legal definition of torture as I still understand it remains as I've described, unless someone has a more recent informaton (it does get confusing).


Game, good well thought out and fair minded post! I only have two challenges to your overall high quality comments.

1) No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all. But no method is full proof and individuals are different. Some break like a 6th grader in th Vice Principles office, and others would spit in the face of Batman himself. I'm for using the least extreme method available that can get the information we need to protect ourselves as long as it fits in with the legal definitions.

2) I think you may be confusing what I mean by evidence.
I think if there was clear evidence for Cheany to point out that it did work, and did save lives.. He would have brought it up by now, or someone would have. But who knows, maybe someone will step up and come to the hearings who actually participated in it and tell the truth about it.

As we've stated, much of the potential evidence is still classified. Not even Dick Cheney can declassify these documents anymore. Witness evidence is one thing, but as long as there are redacted and classified documents still sitting under lock and key that directly address the results of the interrogations, I still think the argument remains open.

Other than that I think you make very very valid arguments. I remain undecided, but I certainly sympathize with your viewpoint.

[Ric]

Wow, ive never seen a thread jump to 3 pages so fast. I must say, im impressed.

You want to try keeping up with it, there are about 5 different conversations going on discussing several topics and I think a few people are getting things out of context in the confusion. I for one have read some posts and had an entirely different reaction to it than the people or person that it may have been directed at. I have read some of the replies and thought to myself 'how does that in any way pertain to what the previous guy was saying?' but it's starting to gain some clarity at least.


Some break like a 6th grader in the Vice Principles office, and others would spit in the face of Batman himself.

:lol: True, very true, I could not have put it better myself.

[BreakABone]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html

Don't know the radio personality, but he undergoes waterboarding to see if it is torture or not.

[TheGame]

1) No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all.

This depends on your definition of working.

-If working means you you can get someone to admit to something thay may or may not be true to help build a case to kill more people..
-If working is sending a message of fear to other countries about being caught by us..
-If working is pissing off your enemies and making an example of people..

Then torture works. And I think that's the reason it survived over time, not because of how reliable the information is. But because it creates this shield of intimidation, and it makes people say anything that you want them to say (given that you've clued them off to what you want them to say).

So if you're saying that the fact that it gives reliable information is why it survived, then I disagree and ask you to show me proof.

[manasecret]

Let's turn this question around:

If our enemies used waterboarding today to extract information from U.S. prisoners, and then those U.S. prisoners were released and we had the ability to prosecute the people who did the waterboarding or ordered it to be done, should and would they be prosecuted for torture?

[Bond]

Okay, this thread has become way too hard to follow, but just two quick points:

1. His name is Cheney. Not Cheany. Not Cheny. It's C-H-E-N-E-Y. Not that hard.

2. Intelligence is spelled i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e.

Thanks, that was driving me insane. Sorry if I was a bit harsh.

[TheGame]

Let's turn this question around:

If our enemies used waterboarding today to extract information from U.S. prisoners, and then those U.S. prisoners were released and we had the ability to prosecute the people who did the waterboarding or ordered it to be done, should and would they be prosecuted for torture?

Another question would be, would we even have the right to do that anymore?

I mean, when it REALLY happend to US soldiers we threw a big hissy-fit over it. But now that we stooped to that level, who the hell are we to tell someone else how to act in times of war?

[Professor S]

This depends on your definition of working.

-If working means you you can get someone to admit to something thay may or may not be true to help build a case to kill more people..
-If working is sending a message of fear to other countries about being caught by us..
-If working is pissing off your enemies and making an example of people..

Then torture works. And I think that's the reason it survived over time, not because of how reliable the information is. But because it creates this shield of intimidation, and it makes people say anything that you want them to say (given that you've clued them off to what you want them to say).

So if you're saying that the fact that it gives reliable information is why it survived, then I disagree and ask you to show me proof.

Ok, well after a brief moment of lucidity, you're back to misrepresenting my arguments again, and worse yet, the interrogation methods I was referring to in the post you quoted were the ones that you said we should use instead of waterboarding! My whole point is that not every technique works on everyone, it's a game of hit and miss regardless of technique used.

You're still asking me for proof when we've already explained, ad nauseum, and the proof is still under lock and key. Repeatedly asking for it won't magically make it declassified! And lack of available evidence to the contrary does not equal evidence for your argument, especially when that evidence you ask for is not available to review.

I mean, am I incoherent? Do we speak the same language? We must not, because I can't think of any other reason why you would continue to ask me the same questions over and over again in such a smarmy and condescending fashion after I have given you thorough, comprehensive and polite answers.

I'm not even disagreeing with the heart of your argument, I'm just saying that in my opinion we don't know enough to make a final judgement. I remain undecided, and at the most I'm simply acknowledging that this is a complex issue, as represented by the number of posts and pages this thread has received. Can we simply agree to disagree and not attempt to reinterpret each other's arguments so they fit our world view? I don't think thats much to ask, quite honestly.

[TheGame]

Ok, strangler, way to avoid the point and clear up nothing.

From my understanding of your arguement (which is apparently wrong according to you).. torture has been used over a long period of time by multiple countries, therefore it must have provided reliable information at some point or another. Do you agree with this statement?

Cause that's the impression I got from this quote:

No one is arguing that other interrogation methods don't work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used at all.

I don't need side commentary either, just a yes or no. Clarify me on your stance. This is just one thing I've felt you've dismissed as fact.

[KillerGremlin]

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded:
<object height="394" width="448"><param name="movie" value="http://www.nbcmiami.com/syndication?id=45846832&path=%2Fhome%2Ftop_stories"/><embed src="http://www.nbcmiami.com/syndication?id=45846832&path=%2Fhome%2Ftop_stories" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" height="394" width="448"></embed><p style="font-size:small">View more news videos at: <a href="http://www.nbcmiami.com/video">http://www.nbcmiami.com/video</a>.</p></object>
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/

[KillerGremlin]

I didn't notice that my video I linked was for radio personality Mancow. I used to listen to his show a little back in the day...

Let's turn this question around:

If our enemies used waterboarding today to extract information from U.S. prisoners, and then those U.S. prisoners were released and we had the ability to prosecute the people who did the waterboarding or ordered it to be done, should and would they be prosecuted for torture?

The problem with this argument is that many of the prisoners we are detaining are these terrorist guys that don't belong to any country and no one is holding accountable for. They aren't POW if no one wants to claim them. At least that is my impression, I don't pay enough attention to the news to know if we are globally being held accountable for the safety and quality of imprisonment for these people so you can happily link me to some news sites suggesting otherwise, I'm just lazy. :p

Anyway.....

I don't like the textbook definition of torture and interrogation. I think they both serve 2 different purposes.

When I think of interrogation I think of a situation where someone who is suspected of a crime (perhaps evidence is involved) is questioned. These questions might be held up to the scrutiny of a polygraph test, and they most likely are administered by trained psychologists. They are probably carefully chosen, and used as a litmus test for the truth. Perhaps playing good cop/bad cop still falls within the realm of "interrogation." Threatening the suspect, yelling at them, even beating the shit out of them might all fall within the realm of "interrogation." None of this sounds all that frightening though because usually this is done through the legal system...usually....

When I think of torture I think of a situation where someone has information or plans about an event that may not have happened. In this situation it might be hard to question them or give them a polygraph test. It's kind of like extracting a confession. "Yes, I confess! We planned to blow up your trade center!" In this situation...if good cop/bad cop doesn't work...why not rip off some nails or sleep deprive them or water board them or give them electric shock! Obviously the flaw with this plan is most people will do anything to get out of stress because we enjoy equilibrium. In that situation who is to say someone doesn't give a BS answer to stop the pain? More frightening than the pain though is the fact that a lot of this torture is happening unsupervised. That sucks. If torture is O-K, it should be ok through some sort of system of checks and balances.

I think that system should be global too. I think there should be checks and balances for intelligence between a few of our big allies. I also think the world shouldn't be sympathetic to known terrorists or associates of guys like Bin Laden. If you hang out with Bin Laden I think you probably had the water boarding coming.

The problem is really 'what is torture.' I think it can be both physical and psychological, or just physical, or just psychological. I'd definitely say water boarding is torture though. I've seen numerous people try it out in relaxed environments and no one seems to enjoy it. Could you image getting water boarded in a secret CIA prison? Fucccckkkk no, I say!

Anyway, another issue I have is what is the alternative to no torture? Better interrogation? Better interrogation how? I mean it's one thing to have an armchair discussion about the obvious moral pitfalls of torture. It's much more productive to actually come up with a solution to this problem. I think this very fact is the reason why Obama has been so hesitant with recent policy regarding the issue; the man is a critical thinker.

[TheGame]

The problem is really 'what is torture.' I think it can be both physical and psychological, or just physical, or just psychological. I'd definitely say water boarding is torture though. I've seen numerous people try it out in relaxed environments and no one seems to enjoy it. Could you image getting water boarded in a secret CIA prison? Fucccckkkk no, I say!

Yeah, I mean think about it.. most videos you see of it, someone is having it done by someone they trust. And they still puss out really fast and call it torture.