Torture

[asdf]

It's illegal.
It's immoral.
It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

Questions? Comments? Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?

[MacG]

It's illegal.
It's immoral.
It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

Questions? Comments? Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?

Defining torture is subjective. We have cruel and unusual punishment laws on the books that were written when things like draw and quartering (pulling a guy apart by ropes and 4 horses) were around. So we invented humane ways of execution that were less painful. Then some one reads about cruel and unusual and the point of reference is the current humane way (long forgetting about buried alive with your head exposed in the desert waiting for the animals and insects to come around) and it gets labeled inhumane so it changes to a new relative humane. I just watched the Discovery Channel's Machines of Malice (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=1.14362.25792.35828.x) and I got to tell a little water boarding on 3 individuals it not so bad compare and see. Remember the Governments are set in place by God (http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Romans+13:1&version=NASB) and does not bear the sword in vain. (http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Romans%2013:3-4&version=NASB) This is one of the hardest truths for me to get a grasp on in the Bible.

MacG

[asdf]

Defining torture is subjective.

To an extent that's correct; determining the exact delineation where cruel treatment crosses the line into torture is a bit fuzzy. Which is why most of the time when it's defined, such as the Geneva Conventions or the UN Convention on Torture, it is phrased as "torture and other inhumane treatment or punishment".

With regard to some of the specific techniques authorized by the US government - beatings, forced nudity, forced standing, stress positions, exposure to heat and extreme cold to the point of hypothermia, religious and sexual desecration, controlled drowning, etc. - these things are, and always have been, torture.


We have cruel and unusual punishment laws on the books that were written when things like draw and quartering (pulling a guy apart by ropes and 4 horses) were around. So we invented humane ways of execution that were less painful. Then some one reads about cruel and unusual and the point of reference is the current humane way (long forgetting about buried alive with your head exposed in the desert waiting for the animals and insects to come around) and it gets labeled inhumane so it changes to a new relative humane.One, we're not talking about punishment - torture was ostensibly used in conjunction with interrogation. Two, this was not connected with any specific crimes - the victims of the US system of torture had not been convicted of anything, and their habeus corpus rights had been suspended so they couldn't even request to know why they were detained.


I just watched the Discovery Channel's Machines of Malice (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=1.14362.25792.35828.x) and I got to tell a little water boarding on 3 individuals it not so bad compare and see. "Not as bad as..." the most horrible torture devices ever invented is not a very good heuristic for determining the morality of a course of action.

And to waterboard a person 183 times over the course of a month, after he had been cooperative with interrogators, is actually pretty bad.


Remember the Governments are set in place by God (http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Romans+13:1&version=NASB) and does not bear the sword in vain. (http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Romans%2013:3-4&version=NASB) This is one of the hardest truths for me to get a grasp on in the Bible.

MacGYou have to remember that those who wrote those words were the persecuted, not the persecutors. To use those verses in support of the government carrying out immoral acts is to get it entirely upside-down. The scriptures were written to comfort those who were being repressed and victimized by a cruel, godless regime - to know that ultimately, God is in control and it was [his] place to vindicate [his] people.

Shalom,
asdf

[Columcille]

1 It's illegal.
2 It's immoral.
3 It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
4 It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
5 It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
6 It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
7 It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

Questions? Comments? Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?

Torture: 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortra, from Latin tortus, past participle of torqure, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/torture


1) Legal is your hot topic. Countries all different in what is legal or not at different periods of time. So saying it is not legal is a matter of what time you are referencing. It is not legal under Obama, but was legal under Truman or FDR is a matter of jurisdiction. Hence, if something was done legally under Bush, it should not be tried as illegal under Obama.

2) immoral. I would submit that some "torture" is not "torture" at all in the minds of most people when contrasting torture methods of the past. I.e. the Vietnamese pulling fingernails, Saddam using batteries on prisoner's genitalia, and a whole load of other such things. Typically, I viewed torture to be anything that actually permanently alter's the bodies appearance or damages any of its functions. I do not think Water Boarding permanently harmed or disfigured those terrorists that were subject to it. Obama not releasing the effects of the Water Boarding, in its prevention of other terroritists plots, is therefore just as immoral for withholding the truth to the American public. If he wants transparentcy in terms of releasing our methods to the world, he should be just as transparent to what it accomplished.

3) If you treat terror as a crime it is admissible only when the methods are presently illegal, if you treat it as civilian combatants, it is different. Again, we should see the results to see whether its intelligence was of value or not.

4) which is why Obama should never have released the information in the first place.

5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention. I wonder how many naive "human shields" that went to Iraq during the onset of the war there came to realize that Saddam was not a nice person after all when he was positioning them in areas of sites that were blatant violations of U.N. resolutions. I have seen the worst of the worst in the detainee camps, and believe me their hatred for American troops does not dissipate because of Water Boarding. They would still do to the troops whatever they intended if we were captured.

6) really, do other regimes Water Board? I mean when we invaded Saddam, did you not see and hear the stories of the types of torture he used? Do you see us doing the same as Iran when they captured the British Navy sailors and was parading them in their State run media for purpose of propoganda. I do not see this happening in the US. You need some real comparisons between the regimes.

7) back to results and the legality during the time of the interviews and advanced interigations techniques. The terrorists had no concern for humanity when they rammed two commercial jets into the Twin Towers, and the third into the Pentagon, not to mention the fourth that crashed and who knows where it was intended--White House?

If the techniques were authorized in a legal manner, absolutely nothing. If you want to change, change policy and quit looking at the past. It harms our own intelligence gathering when they have to fear litigation within the US from balancing it with doing their ***s with our real enemies.

[Columcille]

I have only one thing to add in terms of torture. One of the comforts I have, from the Scriptures, is that God is in the end going to be the divine judge of all our actions. I would hope that Christians, even in death and in life, would be examples to those terrorists even if they become a POW. We should pray for them as well, so that they will eventually come to know Christ and we can rejoice with them even while on earth we suffer from the hands of others. Since the OP is concerned with more political aspects, I thought a spiritual answer also needs to be addressed since this is a Christian site in honor of the late Dr. Martin. No political answer is ever going to wipe the problems of human nature's corruption. In the history of human politics, it has never been attained, nor shall it ever. Utopia is "no place." Only the Kingdom of God that resides in the potential of the believer is a perfect society to be found and it will be realized when Christ comes again. I have considered this angle recently in terms of the "ontological argument" for God's existence. It is easier for people to imagine a perfect society since politics has become its own religion for the athiest and secular humanist and so they attempt to perfect our society by their participation.

I am not saying that the political competing voices and actions are not profitable, but in our daily experiences I find it less relevant. I, as a soldier, have more opportunity in encountering our enemies and treating them disrespectfully than most people that will come here. As such, I am under Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Convention rules and regulations. I am not a CIA operative and so my level of interaction is also limited. However, I am a Christian and I have a higher law in God to consider. Even the UCMJ tells me not to obey an unlawful order, but an order and a legal law is not the same. Anyways, I find mutulating the body to be torture, and so long as evidence of the terrorists are substantial, i.e. fingerprints on IEDs, and other such evidences, their lack of sanc***y of human life puts their own comfort at jeopardy when dealing with en***ies they consider to be their enemy and vice versa.

[asdf]

I must say, knowing you're a military man, I had hoped for more from you. I'm thoroughly disappointed. I had hoped we could come to agree on this, if not anything else.


Torture: 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortra, from Latin tortus, past participle of torqure, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/torture

That's a good start. I'd also like to add that most definitions include non-physical pain, as in the second definition from your link: "Excruciating physical or mental pain".


1) Legal is your hot topic. Countries all different in what is legal or not at different periods of time. So saying it is not legal is a matter of what time you are referencing. It is not legal under Obama, but was legal under Truman or FDR is a matter of jurisdiction. Hence, if something was done legally under Bush, it should not be tried as illegal under Obama.

What was done legally under Bush should not be tried as illegal under Obama. That's fair.

Can you tell me what laws have changed with regards to torture since Obama took office?


2) immoral. I would submit that some "torture" is not "torture" at all in the minds of most people when contrasting torture methods of the past. I.e. the Vietnamese pulling fingernails, Saddam using batteries on prisoner's genitalia, and a whole load of other such things. Typically, I viewed torture to be anything that actually permanently alter's the bodies appearance or damages any of its functions. I do not think Water Boarding permanently harmed or disfigured those terrorists that were subject to it. Obama not releasing the effects of the Water Boarding, in its prevention of other terroritists plots, is therefore just as immoral for withholding the truth to the American public. If he wants transparentcy in terms of releasing our methods to the world, he should be just as transparent to what it accomplished.

"What it accomplished" should be irrelevant, since the ends never justify the means. But we can go there if you'd like. I've found two former Army interrogators who have said it doesn't work, and none of the photographs or memos that have been released have convincingly said otherwise.

Also, as I said to MacG, "not as bad as" is a poor heuristic in determining morality.


3) If you treat terror as a crime it is admissible only when the methods are presently illegal, if you treat it as civilian combatants, it is different. Again, we should see the results to see whether its intelligence was of value or not.

You're conflating two questions here: a) is it a crime? and b) does it work?

For a), the US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on Torture, both of which condemn torture and other inhumane treatment, regardless of the status of the enemy - whether combatants or noncombatants. The US cons***ution clearly states that the conventions to which we are signatories are binding on US citizens.

For b), no evidence so far has indicated that any useful, actionable intelligence was gained through torture that could not have been gained through traditional means of interrogation. Again, with the torture of KSM, he was waterboarded 183 times over the course of a month, after he had already been cooperating with interrogators.


4) which is why Obama should never have released the information in the first place.

Excuse me? That's absurd! Suppressing the truth about what happened, and how it was authorized, is not the way to gain the respect and trust of others. Don't shift the blame from those who committed the action to those who brought the action to light.


5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention...

"Not as bad as..." again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's never been the determining factor for determining the UCMJ or other guidelines for the behavior of US military and intelligence services.


6) really, do other regimes Water Board?

Yes. Yes they have. Waterboarding was developed by the Spanish inquisition and used by the Khmer Rouge and other regimes.


I mean when we invaded Saddam, did you not see and hear the stories of the types of torture he used? Do you see us doing the same as Iran when they captured the British Navy sailors and was parading them in their State run media for purpose of propoganda. I do not see this happening in the US. You need some real comparisons between the regimes.

"Not as bad as." The US has executed as war criminals people who have tortured using the methods authorized by the previous administration.


7) back to results and the legality during the time of the interviews

No. Point 7 is decidedly a moral argument, not a utilitarian or legal one: it disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval. Perhaps it should be combined with point 2.


and advanced interigations techniques

Not to go Godwin on you, but the Nazis developed the euphemism "enhanced interrogation" for torture. We executed at Nuremburg some who were guilty of verschaerfte Vernehmung.


The terrorists had no concern for humanity when they rammed two commercial jets into the Twin Towers, and the third into the Pentagon, not to mention the fourth that crashed and who knows where it was intended--White House?

Back to NABA (Not As Bad As). How long will others' evil actions be used to justify our own?


If the techniques were authorized in a legal manner, absolutely nothing.

A lawyer writes a memo saying that torture is legal (if it conforms to such-and-such limitations). The law itself hasn't changed.


If you want to change, change policy and quit looking at the past.

I agree. If you want the US to change, to overthrow over 200 years' tradition of not mistreating and torturing detainees, do it in the open. Formally withdraw from the UN and Geneva Conventions. Don't just decide that we can ignore them at our leisure.


It harms our own intelligence gathering when they have to fear litigation within the US from balancing it with doing their ***s with our real enemies.

I agree that low-level operatives should not fear prosecution for an illegal and immoral top-down order. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be those in authority who authorized the torture. (And, for the record, I am open to other plans of action besides prosecution, such as a South African-style Truth Commission)

[asdf]

I have only one thing to add in terms of torture. One of the comforts I have, from the Scriptures, is that God is in the end going to be the divine judge of all our actions. I would hope that Christians, even in death and in life, would be examples to those terrorists even if they become a POW. We should pray for them as well, so that they will eventually come to know Christ and we can rejoice with them even while on earth we suffer from the hands of others. Since the OP is concerned with more political aspects, I thought a spiritual answer also needs to be addressed since this is a Christian site in honor of the late Dr. Martin. No political answer is ever going to wipe the problems of human nature's corruption. In the history of human politics, it has never been attained, nor shall it ever. Utopia is "no place." Only the Kingdom of God that resides in the potential of the believer is a perfect society to be found and it will be realized when Christ comes again. I have considered this angle recently in terms of the "ontological argument" for God's existence. It is easier for people to imagine a perfect society since politics has become its own religion for the athiest and secular humanist and so they attempt to perfect our society by their participation.

I am not saying that the political competing voices and actions are not profitable, but in our daily experiences I find it less relevant. I, as a soldier, have more opportunity in encountering our enemies and treating them disrespectfully than most people that will come here. As such, I am under Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Convention rules and regulations. I am not a CIA operative and so my level of interaction is also limited. However, I am a Christian and I have a higher law in God to consider. Even the UCMJ tells me not to obey an unlawful order, but an order and a legal law is not the same. Anyways, I find mutulating the body to be torture, and so long as evidence of the terrorists are substantial, i.e. fingerprints on IEDs, and other such evidences, their lack of sanc***y of human life puts their own comfort at jeopardy when dealing with en***ies they consider to be their enemy and vice versa.

Thanks for these thoughts. This is somewhat what I was trying to get at with point 7. Torture disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

I had not wanted to limit the discussion to the politics involved; I'm very interested in a spiritual and moral argument as well. Have you heard of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (http://www.nrcat.org/)?

Since its formation in January 2006, over 250 religious groups have joined NRCAT, including representatives from the Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, mainline Protestant, Orthodox Christians, Unitarian, Quaker, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baha'i, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh communities. Members include national denominations and faith groups, regional organizations and congregations.

[Columcille]

In regards to #4, you stated "It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies." It is only logical that what the enemies and allies do not know cannot be used against us. I did not say whether it is right or wrong, only that if you plan to give our enemy ammunition to disrespect us or tear our rapport abroad, nothing does it better than Obama decl***ifying it to world.

As far as what has changed in #1, I think Obama has spelled it out that Water Boarding is not going to used under his administration.

As far as how we conduced Water Boarding, we had a physician present at all times. Secondly we were not putting the water down the mouth, but simulating the experience in a safe manner. Nobody drowned in the case. And until Obama decl***ifies the results, as Former VP Cheney has dared him to do, it is a little premature to say it is not effective. I don't care who you talked to, the number of Water Boarding that actually happened was not widespread.

Also, I am talking about damage control. Like I said, I am not saying pro or con as far as its legalization or not, that is not determined by me. I am not a Congressman, and the issue of legal advanced interrigation techniques is not something I consider when voting for a congressman or senator or President. Abortion is the single greatest termination of the sanc***y of life, so it take more priority than some terrorists who wish nothing more than to successfully accomplish another 9/11.

[Columcille]

You stated in #5 "
It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs."
You quoted me as saying:

5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention...

YOu stated
""Not as bad as..." again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's never been the determining factor for determining the UCMJ or other guidelines for the behavior of US military and intelligence services."

The starting statement is something that if we discard our advanced interrogation techniques, that you would label as torture, then the terrorists that capture soldiers would reciprocate and that the soldier would be in less danger. I mean if we are in greater danger because we use these advanced techniques, it seems logical that giving them up would make me and my comrades less likely to be tortured. I am saying that the taq fury (Sunni extremists) and Al-Queda do not abide by any laws of war, and as such your statement is not true. If you want to say that in regards to other nations, I would take you back to Carter during the days of the hostage crisis. The only type of positive response that dictators and regimes that violate human rights on a regular basis respond to is force, because that is how they keep their own citizens in check. The hostages were released if I recall due to Reagan's strong stance. It is on a smaller level no different than the school bully who terrorizes the little kids until he is stood up against and is punished. It may infuriate him more, but so long as he repeats the same bullying practices with equal punishment to the offenses... eventually he is either going to learn his lesson and stop or he is bonafide insane, since insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Wanted to say one other thing. If it comes down to a capture scenerio with soldier POWs, you have to imagine that we are armed prior to the capture, and our firing back as part of the Rules of Engagement and possibly killing a terrorists' buddy is going to put us in the same situation of torture if captured. Besides, we are infidels, and we are part of their jihad. It makes no sense to tell me not to defend myself so as to reduce being tortured. I'd rather kill them in a small arms fire and take as many out as possible to allow other soldiers to either wait until back-up arrived by air support or a near-by post or at the very least to aid in escape if the scenerio seems overwhelming. Simply because their track record of human rights violations, I would consider myself already dead if I fell into the hands of terrorists. Maybe in terms of in Iran, it might be different, but so far, I have not operated near there and nowing our GPS systems, I would avoid crossing their border.

[MacG]

...torture and other inhumane treatment or punishment".

So which leads me to this related side bar: is it humane to lock a free willed human in a cage for the rest of his life?


One, we're not talking about punishment - torture was ostensibly used in conjunction with interrogation. Two, this was not connected with any specific crimes - the victims of the US system of torture had not been convicted of anything, and their habeus corpus rights had been suspended so they couldn't even request to know why they were detained.

They are enemies of the State. Like mom said be careful who you ***ociate with.


And to waterboard a person 183 times over the course of a month, after he had been cooperative with interrogators, is actually pretty bad.

Every 4 hours for a month?


You have to remember that those who wrote those words were the persecuted, not the persecutors. To use those verses in support of the government carrying out immoral acts is to get it entirely upside-down. The scriptures were written to comfort those who were being repressed and victimized by a cruel, godless regime - to know that ultimately, God is in control and it was [his] place to vindicate [his] people.

I wonder how much comfort to these words were:" 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. " while being crucified burned as lamps to know if you resist authority you resist the ordinance of God. I realize there are verses that say to count it as a blessing to suffer in the same way as Christ.

As I said this is one of the most difficult things to understand how God gave Sadam "authority". I see the pattern of God using the unrighteous nation to discipline the backslidden nation and vice versa. It is difficult none the less.

MacG

[asdf]

In regards to #4, you stated "It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies." It is only logical that what the enemies and allies do not know cannot be used against us. I did not say whether it is right or wrong, only that if you plan to give our enemy ammunition to disrespect us or tear our rapport abroad, nothing does it better than Obama decl***ifying it to world.

When such information leaks, as it inevitably will (see: Abu Ghraib), do you think it looks better for the government to have denied it or to have told the truth?

My faith teaches me that the truth is always better than the suppression thereof, that "that which is spoken in secret will be shouted from the rooftops".


As far as what has changed in #1, I think Obama has spelled it out that Water Boarding is not going to used under his administration.

I did not ask what changed policy-wise, I asked what changed law-wise. It was a response to your quite reasonable ***ertion that what was done legally under Bush should not be tried as illegal under Obama.


As far as how we conduced Water Boarding, we had a physician present at all times. Secondly we were not putting the water down the mouth, but simulating the experience in a safe manner. Nobody drowned in the case.

Like I said: Spanish Inquisition. Khmer Rouge. The practice was developed exactly so that the victim could experience the terror of drowning in a "safe manner".


And until Obama decl***ifies the results, as Former VP Cheney has dared him to do, it is a little premature to say it is not effective.

Lovely. So you can **** him for releasing the evidence because it "gives our enemies ammunition", and **** him for not releasing the evidence because it might vindicate Cheney.


I don't care who you talked to, the number of Water Boarding that actually happened was not widespread.

That's correct. There were only a few people waterboarded, which is why I think it's a mistake to exclusively focus on that one practice, ignoring the widespread system put in place in every theater of war: Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram...

Nudity, hypothermia, religious desecration, exploitation of phobias, sexual humiliation, beatings, stress positions...waterboarding was only a small part of the larger picture.

[asdf]

The starting statement is something that if we discard our advanced interrogation techniques, that you would label as torture, then the terrorists that capture soldiers would reciprocate and that the soldier would be in less danger. I mean if we are in greater danger because we use these advanced techniques, it seems logical that giving them up would make me and my comrades less likely to be tortured.

It is a fact that the torture of detainees conducted by American forces has been used to recruit more terrorists.


I am saying that the taq fury (Sunni extremists) and Al-Queda do not abide by any laws of war, and as such your statement is not true.

We are supposed to abide by the laws of war, whether or not our enemy does. While it is true that an individual terrorist is not likely to give up using "advanced techniques" against Americans if we fight ethically, al-Qaeda is more likely to fall out of mainstream Arab favor.


If you want to say that in regards to other nations, I would take you back to Carter during the days of the hostage crisis. The only type of positive response that dictators and regimes that violate human rights on a regular basis respond to is force, because that is how they keep their own citizens in check. The hostages were released if I recall due to Reagan's strong stance. It is on a smaller level no different than the school bully who terrorizes the little kids until he is stood up against and is punished. It may infuriate him more, but so long as he repeats the same bullying practices with equal punishment to the offenses... eventually he is either going to learn his lesson and stop or he is bonafide insane, since insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Or, we could go the route of Gandhi, or MLK, or the Iranian green revolution, or...Jesus the Christ.


Wanted to say one other thing. If it comes down to a capture scenerio with soldier POWs, you have to imagine that we are armed prior to the capture, and our firing back as part of the Rules of Engagement and possibly killing a terrorists' buddy is going to put us in the same situation of torture if captured. Besides, we are infidels, and we are part of their jihad. It makes no sense to tell me not to defend myself so as to reduce being tortured. I'd rather kill them in a small arms fire and take as many out as possible to allow other soldiers to either wait until back-up arrived by air support or a near-by post or at the very least to aid in escape if the scenerio seems overwhelming. Simply because their track record of human rights violations, I would consider myself already dead if I fell into the hands of terrorists. Maybe in terms of in Iran, it might be different, but so far, I have not operated near there and nowing our GPS systems, I would avoid crossing their border.

I have no issues with following the standard Rules of Engagement, and I understand that matters are different between a combat zone and a detention facility.

[asdf]

So which leads me to this related side bar: is it humane to lock a free willed human in a cage for the rest of his life?

I have no issue with following the standard definitions of humane treatment in detention, punishment and/or rehabilitation.

On the other hand, it is not humane to detain anyone the president decides (citizen or non-), without being accused of a crime, for as long as the president decides, with no access to legal counsel. Habeus rights have existed in every civilized society since at least the Magna Carta.


They are enemies of the State. Like mom said be careful who you ***ociate with.

No. Some were not enemies of the state at all. Would you like some reading material?


Every 4 hours for a month?

I guess so. Pretty horrific, no?


I wonder how much comfort to these words were:" 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. " while being crucified burned as lamps to know if you resist authority you resist the ordinance of God. I realize there are verses that say to count it as a blessing to suffer in the same way as Christ.

As I said this is one of the most difficult things to understand how God gave Sadam "authority". I see the pattern of God using the unrighteous nation to discipline the backslidden nation and vice versa. It is difficult none the less.

MacG

Again, I think that the context of these earliest Christians being the victims, not the "authority", is key here. They did not have the option of voting in a new Emperor if they didn't like the treatment under Vespasian, let alone deposing the tyrant through force of arms.

Jesus himself opposed those who favored revolt against the occupying forces, warning them that their agenda of violence would lead to devastation. The earliest followers of Jesus "turned the world upside-down", and in so doing, were called atheists because they refused to bow to the gods of empire.

Shalom,
asdf

[disciple]

Greetings,
Interesting comments by everyone. I would like to add that in America, our law enforcement, military and government are mostly non-Christian and as such
probably feel no moral obligation to adhere to any non torture/brutality code or law. There will always be someone willing to do anything to another human being to get information and it is also human nature for most people to silently agree to this. After all, the day after 9-11 we would have tortured Mother Theresa to find the ones responsable. Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow and there will never be peace or righteousness untill Jesus returns.

[GiGi]

Greetings,
Interesting comments by everyone. I would like to add that in America, our law enforcement, military and government are mostly non-Christian and as such
probably feel no moral obligation to adhere to any non torture/brutality code or law. There will always be someone willing to do anything to another human being to get information and it is also human nature for most people to silently agree to this. After all, the day after 9-11 we would have tortured Mother Theresa to find the ones responsable. Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow and there will never be peace or righteousness untill Jesus returns.

Who told you that law enforcement, military, and government is made of of (mostly) non-christians? Who told you how these non-christians probably "feel"? What makes you think most people silently agree with torture? No one I know would subject Mother Teresa, or anyone else to torture.
I agree that 'you reap what you sow'. In other words, one thing will tend to follow another in a logical and predictible manner.

[disciple]

Who told you that law enforcement, military, and government is made of of (mostly) non-christians? Who told you how these non-christians probably "feel"? What makes you think most people silently agree with torture? No one I know would subject Mother Teresa, or anyone else to torture.
I agree that 'you reap what you sow'. In other words, one thing will tend to follow another in a logical and predictible manner.

Hi GiGi,
So you believe that the majority of policemen, soilders and government officials are followers of Jesus Christ? It is my opinion that that is not the case. As far as knowing how non-Christians or Christians feel for that matter, I base that statement on observing human nature and most people put thier own interests and safety first. I think most people silently agree with torture because most people overtly agree with killing live babies in thier mothers womb. The Mother Teresa statement was an exaggeration to make a point.

[GiGi]

Hi GiGi,
So you believe that the majority of policemen, soilders and government officials are followers of Jesus Christ? It is my opinion that that is not the case. As far as knowing how non-Christians or Christians feel for that matter, I base that statement on observing human nature and most people put thier own interests and safety first. I think most people silently agree with torture because most people overtly agree with killing live babies in thier mothers womb. The Mother Teresa statement was an exaggeration to make a point.

As long as we all know that your statements here have no facts to back them up, we can take it for what its worth. Comments like these serve only to get people riled up unless we know not to take them seriously.

[asdf]

Greetings,
Interesting comments by everyone. I would like to add that in America, our law enforcement, military and government are mostly non-Christian and as such probably feel no moral obligation to adhere to any non torture/brutality code or law.

Perhaps. But why would it be that the so-called Religious Right has become the greatest apologist for the use of torture and brutality?

Our laws, military codes, and conventions to which we are signatories are designed to be faith-neutral, i.e., they can and must be followed by people of all, or no, religious faith.


There will always be someone willing to do anything to another human being to get information and it is also human nature for most people to silently agree to this. After all, the day after 9-11 we would have tortured Mother Theresa to find the ones responsable.

I agree, more or less, which is why we have laws written before the "heat of the moment" to guide our behavior, to prevent us from committing atrocities out of our fear and anger over...atrocities.

BTW I pretty much agree that someone would have tortured Mother Teresa in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you think it would have yielded good intelligence?

The torture I am referring to is not the action of one or two rogue individuals in the days immediately following September 2001. An entire program of torture was developed from the very highest levels of government, from 2002 through at least 2006. It's not an interrogator "snapping" and doing an evil act that concerns me, it's when it becomes bureaucratized and ins***utionalized, describing exactly how many minutes a detainee may be subjected to hypothermia-inducing temperatures, exactly how many ****s may be stricken, etc. That's what is chilling to me.


Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow

I agree.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....

Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

and there will never be peace or righteousness untill Jesus returns.

So should we give up on pursuing "the things which make for peace"?

[disciple]

Good comments Asdf,
We should not give up pursuing the things that make for peace nor decrying torture or any other inhumanity, abortion included. But we must also realize that peace will not come from the efforts of the U.N , the E.U, the ACLU or any other man made organization or government. Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

[GiGi]

Good comments Asdf,
We should not give up pursuing the things that make for peace nor decrying torture or any other inhumanity, abortion included. But we must also realize that peace will not come from the efforts of the U.N , the E.U, the ACLU or any other man made organization or government. Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

LOL! Which god?
http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

[disciple]

LOL! Which god?
http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

Hi GiGi,
The God of the Bible, the One who created you and me, the One who became flesh and dwelt amoung us. The One who died to pay for our sins and then rose from the dead so we would know we could trust Him to do what He said He would do. The One who will redeem you and place you in His family forever if you ask in faith and repentance. Yea He's the One.

[GiGi]

Yea He's the One.

That's (pretty much) what they all say.

[disciple]

That's (pretty much) what they all say.

Greetings GiGi,
Just sharing the good news.

[GiGi]

Greetings GiGi,
Just sharing the good news.
Uh-Huh.
Tell it to the U.N., E.U. and A.C.L.U.

[Trinity]

Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

At times when God is integrated into the equation, very great cruelties are committed in his name. In the past, the bible had become the strongest case for the black slavery. Until they wake up. Just look at those hysterical religious people in front of the White House last weekend. Obama, portrayed as Hitler, Stalin or as an African sorcerer. Violent today in their speeches, violent tomorrow in their actions.

Trinity

[MacG]

Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow
I agree.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....

Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

-Martin Luther King, Jr

This is clearly evident in Oakland and Richmond CA where for a short time the gang related killing was on par or higher than the Iraq war.

Ok. So there is no "torture". How do you get one who has strong alliance to what we call a terror campaign (jihad) break that bond to give information to prevent future murders, excuse me, cleansings? The militant Jihad goal is to cleanse the world of the infidel and they will not stop until either of the two are vanquished. What to do?

MacG

[Columcille]

It is a fact that the torture of detainees conducted by American forces has been used to recruit more terrorists.



We are supposed to abide by the laws of war, whether or not our enemy does. While it is true that an individual terrorist is not likely to give up using "advanced techniques" against Americans if we fight ethically, al-Qaeda is more likely to fall out of mainstream Arab favor.



Or, we could go the route of Gandhi, or MLK, or the Iranian green revolution, or...Jesus the Christ.



I have no issues with following the standard Rules of Engagement, and I understand that matters are different between a combat zone and a detention facility.

What soldiers' that lack common sense and post their violations on YouTube, deserve to get what is coming to them. However, I do not think the CIA leaks such information to be used by Terrorists for their recruitment. Only people like Obama who decl***ifies it will be used for propoganda to further their agenda even now. I as a soldier am disturbed at other soldier violations, but human nature is human nature. Have you lost any people in your unit to IEDs? I should think you would be POed at some of the detainees. Is it right, no. Does it happen, obviously. But I am sure you probably do not hear this side of the story, not a justification of their actions, but I should think in terms of the fellow Satanist on our board, I wonder what he would think if his best friend were to die by the hands of a terrorist. I mean, human nature is human nature. Just because I should turn the other cheek like Jesus instructs, does not mean that my flesh will not get the best of me at that moment and fight back. Is your idealism so niave?

[Bat-Man]

It's illegal.
In some places. Do you claim there are no laws which sanction it ?


It's immoral.
I completely agree.


It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

Some people who are tortured sometimes end up confessing the truth.


It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
I agree.


It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
I agree.


It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
Heh, I'm not sure our credibility can get much worse with some people, but I'm willing to believe that is possible.


It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

I agree.


Questions?
I have one on the tip of my tongue:

Where do YOU draw the line between torture and the pain that comes from God helping someone to see their condition after they have refused God's help from our Savior ?


Comments?
I generally agree with the general content of your message, but I'm not sure if we agree on every specific.


Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?
Repentance and forgiveness by those who have the love of God in their soul.

[asdf]

Good comments Asdf,
We should not give up pursuing the things that make for peace nor decrying torture or any other inhumanity, abortion included. But we must also realize that peace will not come from the efforts of the U.N , the E.U, the ACLU or any other man made organization or government.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree, for the most part.


Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

I believe this is intentional - as intentional as the omission of God from the US Cons***ution. Unfortunately the "God" concept of various peoples and religions have been one more source of disunity, disharmony, and violence.

[asdf]

Ok. So there is no "torture". How do you get one who has strong alliance to what we call a terror campaign (jihad) break that bond to give information to prevent future murders, excuse me, cleansings? The militant Jihad goal is to cleanse the world of the infidel and they will not stop until either of the two are vanquished. What to do?

MacG

"Murder" is an acceptable term. I hope you don't think that I in any way want to give a p*** to the barbarous actions of immoral thugs and terrorists.

You are correct about the agenda of militant jihadists. Which is precisely why we must not legitimize their slanderous propaganda against the West. When we act ethically in accordance with our values, we cause violent extremists to lose rapport in the eyes of the m***es.

Torture has always been prohibited in America - all the way back to George Washington. As for how to obtain information, we can and should do it the way we always have. I can quote from a couple of Army interrogators describing the process if you're interested.

[asdf]

What soldiers' that lack common sense and post their violations on YouTube, deserve to get what is coming to them. However, I do not think the CIA leaks such information to be used by Terrorists for their recruitment. Only people like Obama who decl***ifies it will be used for propoganda to further their agenda even now. I as a soldier am disturbed at other soldier violations, but human nature is human nature. Have you lost any people in your unit to IEDs? I should think you would be POed at some of the detainees. Is it right, no. Does it happen, obviously. But I am sure you probably do not hear this side of the story, not a justification of their actions, but I should think in terms of the fellow Satanist on our board, I wonder what he would think if his best friend were to die by the hands of a terrorist. I mean, human nature is human nature. Just because I should turn the other cheek like Jesus instructs, does not mean that my flesh will not get the best of me at that moment and fight back. Is your idealism so niave?

No, I am not so naive as to think that abuses and excesses will not happen during wartime, that soldiers' anger and hatred of the enemy will get the better of them from time to time. I'm also not so nihilistic as to think that it doesn't matter - that since such abuses are inevitable, they should be accepted and embraced.

In any case, abuse by soldiers on the battlefield, or in the immediate aftermath thereof, is not what I'm talking about here. Care should be taken to differentiate between random excesses or abuses by "a few bad apples", as happens in every war, and a bureaucratized, official top-down policy, implemented across all theaters of war.

We're talking about the latter here, not the former.

[asdf]

Thanks for your comments, Bat-Man. It's good to see your thoughts.


[Torture is illegal] In some places. Do you claim there are no laws which sanction it ?

No, I guess I should have made it more clear that I was speaking from the perspective of US law. (As well as the other signatories of the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on Torture.)


Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

Some people who are tortured sometimes end up confessing the truth.

This is possible. What distinguishes something as torture is that a person is brought to a point psychologically or physically where they will say anything to stop it.

The real issue is that the information obtained through torture is decidedly unreliable, in that there's no way to quickly tell whether the detainee is lying or telling the truth.


I completely agree.

I agree.

I agree.

Heh, I'm not sure our credibility can get much worse with some people, but I'm willing to believe that is possible.

I agree.

Say it some more. :cool:

Just kidding. Thanks for your support.


I have one on the tip of my tongue:

Where do YOU draw the line between torture and the pain that comes from God helping someone to see their condition after they have refused God's help from our Savior ?

Hrm. I'm inclined to the opinion that any post-mortem judgment is decidedly to be left to the discretion of God. I can't speak for any "pain" that God will directly or indirectly inflict, but I can definitively say that any pain humans inflict upon fellow humans, fellow bearers of the imago Dei, should be done with a great deal of circumspection. Torture unquestionably violates this.


I generally agree with the general content of your message, but I'm not sure if we agree on every specific.

Fair enough. :)


Repentance and forgiveness by those who have the love of God in their soul.

I would like to see repentance from those who authorized such a thing. For me it's not a matter of "forgiveness" but of justice. It does a grave disservice to everyone involved - from the top of the administration, to the ones executing the torture, to the victims, to the victims' families, to the US in general, to the Arab world... - to cover up the atrocities that were committed in our name. ("Our" ***uming you're an American, of course.)

Shalom,
asdf

[Columcille]

No, I am not so naive as to think that abuses and excesses will not happen during wartime, that soldiers' anger and hatred of the enemy will get the better of them from time to time. I'm also not so nihilistic as to think that it doesn't matter - that since such abuses are inevitable, they should be accepted and embraced.

In any case, abuse by soldiers on the battlefield, or in the immediate aftermath thereof, is not what I'm talking about here. Care should be taken to differentiate between random excesses or abuses by "a few bad apples", as happens in every war, and a bureaucratized, official top-down policy, implemented across all theaters of war.

We're talking about the latter here, not the former.

Would you care to say that point five in your OP is a faulty conclusion? My points above ties in directly to the safety of the soldier aspect, since you referenced Abu Graib, it was soldiers that did the humiliation acts against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it was the videos that were uploaded that were used in continuing efforts of recruitment in Iraq and abroad. Since much of the the interrogation methods was a need to know basis, and even Nancy Pelosi was sitting in on the briefing (even though she calles the CIA liars) what was not leaked could not be used by Terrorists. If anything, the recruitment process in the terrorist network preys on the disadvantaged Muslim. Most of the detainees I encountered had a low level of Arabic instruction and so relied on the terrorist network and sympathizer's interpretations because they could not read the Koran for themselves. As a soldier that had the opportunity to conduct detainee operations, actually seeing the schools and Sunni professors from Baghdad come and teach in the compounds, there is a great number of detainees that are socially and economically disadvantaged. The war itself as it started caused political chaos, and it was this that increased the recruitment, not Bush or Cheney's approval of advanced interigation methods. We have made substantial successes in Iraq because the Shieks in the Sunni towns have had their children killed, not by American soldiers, but by the Muslim extremists. That is why we are winning in Iraq on a progressive basis. If you recall General Petraius handing over Fallujah back to the locals, you would have seen by the words of the local Sunni leadership the cause of their successes. Terrorists if capturing American soldiers or our allies, have no concern whatsoever of your point number 5. I would like for you to admit that number 5 is a faulty conclusion.

[MacG]

...As for how to obtain information, we can and should do it the way we always have. I can quote from a couple of Army interrogators describing the process if you're interested.

I am sure they have some ways no need to broadcast it though. What I would find interesting however is how our guys are trained how not to give up information when captured by those who do not follow the Geneva conventions.

MacG

[Columcille]

What I would find interesting however is how our guys are trained how not to give up information when captured by those who do not follow the Geneva conventions.

MacG

For the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen, we are briefed on hostage situations prior to going to the theatre operations. The videos that we watch comes mostly from the American hostages that were held in Iran during Carter's administration. In some ways, the mental stress that we recieve in bootcamp is the best and possibly the only preparation. Statistics of survival of POWs seems to increase for Marines over the other branches due to the length of our training and the level of discipline and iden***y as a Marine. At least this is something that was indoctrinated to me when I was active duty Marine, but this was prior to 9/11, so the dynamic has changed and also I am fairly certain that the statistics given to me were fairly accurate at the time, it seems reasonable, but also biased coming from the Marines. I think there is a big difference in peace time and war time in how soldier's are treated. Since logistically speaking, trying to train up all soldier's to endure some safe torture treatments is time consuming, I would not be surprised if Marine Recon, Army Rangers, Navy Seals, and the elite fighting forces get the special attention for such training, but I am only guessing. Personally, I think I would like to experience water boarding and the other so called tortures. I have to wonder also, for those conducting the interrogations, were they not also video taped recieving the treatments they incorporated. I mean I had to be pepper sprayed by military grade OC and being photographed going through it. I can recall the sleep deprevation in the Marine Corps in the first couple of days. Standing on those yellow steps and getting inprocessed really really was not the funnest couple of days in my life. Anyways, it is a good question.

[asdf]

I am sure they have some ways no need to broadcast it though.

It's not a matter of "broadcasting" it as if it's a secret - the tools of military interrogations are a matter of public record, and are published in the Army Field Guide. (I believe that's what it's called.)


What I would find interesting however is how our guys are trained how not to give up information when captured by those who do not follow the Geneva conventions.

MacG

It is indeed interesting that methods culled from the SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training - developed to train our troops to resist the brutal tactics of regimes like the Gestapo - were used to expand the range of techniques permitted by the US government.

[asdf]

Would you care to say that point five in your OP is a faulty conclusion? My points above ties in directly to the safety of the soldier aspect, since you referenced Abu Graib, it was soldiers that did the humiliation acts against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it was the videos that were uploaded that were used in continuing efforts of recruitment in Iraq and abroad. Since much of the the interrogation methods was a need to know basis, and even Nancy Pelosi was sitting in on the briefing (even though she calles the CIA liars) what was not leaked could not be used by Terrorists. If anything, the recruitment process in the terrorist network preys on the disadvantaged Muslim. Most of the detainees I encountered had a low level of Arabic instruction and so relied on the terrorist network and sympathizer's interpretations because they could not read the Koran for themselves. As a soldier that had the opportunity to conduct detainee operations, actually seeing the schools and Sunni professors from Baghdad come and teach in the compounds, there is a great number of detainees that are socially and economically disadvantaged. The war itself as it started caused political chaos, and it was this that increased the recruitment, not Bush or Cheney's approval of advanced interigation methods. We have made substantial successes in Iraq because the Shieks in the Sunni towns have had their children killed, not by American soldiers, but by the Muslim extremists. That is why we are winning in Iraq on a progressive basis. If you recall General Petraius handing over Fallujah back to the locals, you would have seen by the words of the local Sunni leadership the cause of their successes. Terrorists if capturing American soldiers or our allies, have no concern whatsoever of your point number 5. I would like for you to admit that number 5 is a faulty conclusion.

I see that you continue to use the Gestapo's favored euphemism for torture, verschaerfte Vernehmung.

I'm sticking to all of the points, including #5, until the facts convince me otherwise. I'm not going to accept your blaming of the whistle-****ers and those behind the leaks; as I said upthread, I believe the truth will always come out.

You're correct that "the recruitment process in the terrorist network preys on the disadvantaged Muslim", that extremists prey on the vulnerable, the uneducated, the illiterate. All the more reason for the US to undermine public support of extremist groups by demonstrably proving their propaganda to be false. When public support wanes, groups like al-Qaeda will have no more power.

Regarding my "faulty conclusion", allow me to quote former senior interrogator Matthew Alexander, 14 year veteran of the Air Force, leader of the interrogation team that located al-Zarqawi:

As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda's number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save.
(source (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21354))

[Bat-Man]

Hrm. I'm inclined to the opinion that any post-mortem judgment is decidedly to be left to the discretion of God.
... the discretion of God.

My goal is to become like God, my Father in heaven, so it is very important to me that I find out and understand and attain "the discretion of God" so that I can do what he would do in the same circumstances that I am in as I live my life.


I can't speak for any "pain" that God will directly or indirectly inflict, but I can definitively say that any pain humans inflict upon fellow humans, fellow bearers of the imago Dei, should be done with a great deal of circumspection.
Hrm. Let's see if I can convey my thoughts to you on this issue some more.

I believe we should not cause any pain that God himself would not cause.

AND

I believe we should cause pain if God would also cause that pain.

AND I REPEAT:

I believe we should not cause any pain that God himself would not cause.

Pain is what we are talking about when we talk about torture, isn't it.

If we're talking about agency, though, or allowing people to do whatever they want to do, I believe God has given all of us that right/power while also expecting all of us to face the consequences of own our actions.

So, in my perspective, the real issue under consideration is:

At what point should we cause pain to someone for his or her choices?

And my answer, as stated above, is:

I believe we should not cause any pain that God himself would not cause.

AND

I believe we should cause pain if God would also cause that pain.


Torture unquestionably violates this.
I believe so, too, because I don't believe it will be God who causes or will cause the kind of pain that we consider to be torture, at least not directly.


I would like to see repentance from those who authorized such a thing [torture].
I'd like to see everyone repent of everything they know God doesn't want them to do... and I'm doing the best I can do, personally.


For me it's not a matter of "forgiveness" but of justice.
For someone who repents, the mercy of forgiveness is just because of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

For someone who doesn't repent, though, forgiveness would not be just.

... so if that's what you meant, then I agree with you, again.


It does a grave disservice to everyone involved - from the top of the administration, to the ones executing the torture, to the victims, to the victims' families, to the US in general, to the Arab world... - to cover up the atrocities that were committed in our name. ("Our" ***uming you're an American, of course.)
I agree, and yes I am an American... and also a citizen of the United States.

L'Shalom

[asdf]

... the discretion of God.

My goal is to become like God, my Father in heaven, so it is very important to me that I find out and understand and attain "the discretion of God" so that I can do what he would do in the same circumstances that I am in as I live my life.

Hm. I suppose the definitive Christian scripture in this regard would be Romans 12:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I guess that from my perspective this is the one area in which I am not called to emulate God - but rather to "leave room for God's wrath"


Hrm. Let's see if I can convey my thoughts to you on this issue some more.

I believe we should not cause any pain that God himself would not cause.

AND

I believe we should cause pain if God would also cause that pain.

AND I REPEAT:

I believe we should not cause any pain that God himself would not cause.

Pain is what we are talking about when we talk about torture, isn't it.

If we're talking about agency, though, or allowing people to do whatever they want to do, I believe God has given all of us that right/power while also expecting all of us to face the consequences of own our actions.

So, in my perspective, the real issue under consideration is:

At what point should we cause pain to someone for his or her choices?

I can track with what you're saying here, and can more-or-less agree with your premises, with the caveat of "leaving room for God's wrath" as I mentioned above.

Another factor for me is the observation that any "pain" God inflicts, any "wrath" [he] pours out, is redemptive in purpose, not simply punishment. I would love to see human agencies take this focus more - to guide the ones suffering the consequences of their actions to greater shalom, wholeness, rather than simply to enact revenge or punishment. (Whenever possible, of course. I fully realize that some people have committed acts so vile that they may need to be forcibly removed from the community for the community's own safety.)


I believe so, too, because I don't believe it will be God who causes or will cause the kind of pain that we consider to be torture, at least not directly.

I agree. I believe it to be inconsistent to what I know of God.


I'd like to see everyone repent of everything they know God doesn't want them to do... and I'm doing the best I can do, personally.

This is good. I'm with you.


For someone who repents, the mercy of forgiveness is just because of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

For someone who doesn't repent, though, forgiveness would not be just.

... so if that's what you meant, then I agree with you, again.

I'm not exactly sure where you are, here. It seems to me that you are using both "forgiveness" and "justice" in an eternal, postmortem sense, to refer to a person's stance before God.

If that's the case, that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm speaking in a more temporal sense. I want to see justice, God's will being done "on earth as it is in heaven". This does encomp*** mercy/forgiveness as well as justice. For those who have broken the law and caused irreparable harm to fellow humans, to do nothing is an injustice.


I agree, and yes I am an American... and also a citizen of the United States.

L'Shalom

Cool. It's nice talking to you, Bat-Man.

L'Shalom.

[Bat-Man]

Hm. I suppose the definitive Christian scripture in this regard would be Romans 12:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I guess that from my perspective this is the one area in which I am not called to emulate God - but rather to "leave room for God's wrath"
I think I see what you're saying, and I agree with what I think is your point.

Let's play it out as it might happen in real life, to see if we still agree.

Suppose we're both talking to a man and we're both he sure knows something about an imminent terrorist strike and that we're both also sure that if you can get him to talk about what he knows we would then be able to save the lives of others.

Now suppose that he's admitted that he knows something that would save those people and you've tried your very best to be nice and respectful to him as a person while trying to help him see that he can help to save those people, and yet he still refuses to tell you anything that would save those people because he really wants them to suffer.

Me: " Okay. It's all on your head, now. I've done all that I can do, and now it's in the hands of God who will hold you responsible for the suffering that you could have helped to prevent."

You: ???


I can track with what you're saying here, and can more-or-less agree with your premises, with the caveat of "leaving room for God's wrath" as I mentioned above.
I accept the fact that there is only so much I can do to help someone, and I believe the best thing that I can do is to be a positive influence for good.


Another factor for me is the observation that any "pain" God inflicts, any "wrath" [he] pours out, is redemptive in purpose, not simply punishment. I would love to see human agencies take this focus more - to guide the ones suffering the consequences of their actions to greater shalom, wholeness, rather than simply to enact revenge or punishment. (Whenever possible, of course. I fully realize that some people have committed acts so vile that they may need to be forcibly removed from the community for the community's own safety.)
We agree, again.


I agree. I believe it to be inconsistent to what I know of God.

This is good. I'm with you.
I like hearing this stuff, too... although I'd still go on without your approval.


I'm not exactly sure where you are, here. It seems to me that you are using both "forgiveness" and "justice" in an eternal, postmortem sense, to refer to a person's stance before God.

If that's the case, that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm speaking in a more temporal sense. I want to see justice, God's will being done "on earth as it is in heaven". This does encomp*** mercy/forgiveness as well as justice. For those who have broken the law and caused irreparable harm to fellow humans, to do nothing is an injustice.
I believe God forgives everyone who repents, and that a person who repents tries to repair the damages that he, or she, has caused, as much as possible.

Going to jail, in and of itself, serves no good purpose.

What society really needs is for those who have sinned to repent and for those who have been wronged to forgive those who have repented, or are in the process of repenting.

It's only when someone refuses to repent that they must be sent to live somewhere else.


Cool. It's nice talking to you, Bat-Man.

L'Shalom.
Boomerang toss... back atcha.

[asdf]

I think I see what you're saying, and I agree with what I think is your point.

Let's play it out as it might happen in real life, to see if we still agree.

Suppose we're both talking to a man and we're both he sure knows something about an imminent terrorist strike and that we're both also sure that if you can get him to talk about what he knows we would then be able to save the lives of others.

Now suppose that he's admitted that he knows something that would save those people and you've tried your very best to be nice and respectful to him as a person while trying to help him see that he can help to save those people, and yet he still refuses to tell you anything that would save those people because he really wants them to suffer.

Me: " Okay. It's all on your head, now. I've done all that I can do, and now it's in the hands of God who will hold you responsible for the suffering that you could have helped to prevent."

You: ???

Sure. I like your response. I'd go with pretty much the same - though also it should be said that criminal punishment may be appropriate if guilt can be proven using the normal methods in a court of law / war crimes tribunal.

Also, a brief comment that the scenario you outline, the "ticking time bomb" scenario, exists only on TV. In educating myself about real interrogation scenarios, I have found interrogators say that if they can get a suspect to talk about anything (beyond Name, Rank, and Number), they will talk about everything.


I accept the fact that there is only so much I can do to help someone, and I believe the best thing that I can do is to be a positive influence for good.

Yes, I agree.


We agree, again.

I like hearing this stuff, too... although I'd still go on without your approval.

Good for you. You don't need my approval to follow the Truth.


I believe God forgives everyone who repents, and that a person who repents tries to repair the damages that he, or she, has caused, as much as possible.

Going to jail, in and of itself, serves no good purpose.

What society really needs is for those who have sinned to repent and for those who have been wronged to forgive those who have repented, or are in the process of repenting.

Yes, I agree.


It's only when someone refuses to repent that they must be sent to live somewhere else.

I suppose that's true, but it's very difficult for humans to judge the veracity of another's claim to repentance. The old slogan "Trust, but verify" may be appropriate - and in some circumstances the gravity of the offense may require containing a person out of concern for recidivism.


Boomerang toss... back atcha.

:)

[Columcille]

I'm sticking to all of the points, including #5, until the facts convince me otherwise. I'm not going to accept your blaming of the whistle-****ers and those behind the leaks; as I said upthread, I believe the truth will always come out.

You're correct that "the recruitment process in the terrorist network preys on the disadvantaged Muslim", that extremists prey on the vulnerable, the uneducated, the illiterate. All the more reason for the US to undermine public support of extremist groups by demonstrably proving their propaganda to be false. When public support wanes, groups like al-Qaeda will have no more power.

Regarding my "faulty conclusion", allow me to quote former senior interrogator Matthew Alexander, 14 year veteran of the Air Force, leader of the interrogation team that located al-Zarqawi:

As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda's number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save.
(source (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21354))


The article has preconceived notions. It is not reporting, it is an opinion piece. As such, giving up Bin Laden is practically impossible, since even Bin Laden was highly trained by the CIA during the war against Russia in Afganistan. As soon as a high man is captured, I am sure Bin Laden does not stick to any place long enough, nor would he hang out with people that have not been tested. Can you imagine if we were to try to get an operative inside his organization? Can you imagine a CIA operative that purposefully terrorizes people just so he can get in the good graces of Bin Laden? How unethical would that be? I think the interrogator is naive in his own abilities about soft interrogation methods. The Abu Graib incident was not part of interrogation methods that was alluded to in recruitment, it was soldiers that uploaded that information online. So attributing one thing to terror acts by the US that have not been leaked to bad soldiers doing something unrelated to interrogations and stating it was acts of terror is another thing entirely. Those bad soldiers were investigated and punished because what they did was unlawful, the interrogators were not. I do not think the man in the article was privy to such information, but was only ***uming what he does not know.

I do not think the National Interest is the most reliable source. Official DOD, CIA, and Homeland Security documents that have been decl***ified are more important for the discussion.

[Bat-Man]

Sure. I like your response. I'd go with pretty much the same - though also it should be said that criminal punishment may be appropriate if guilt can be proven using the normal methods in a court of law / war crimes tribunal.
I agree, and I believe the only fit form of punishment for someone who refuses to repent from their sins, or infractions of God's laws, is to send them to live where they can do no more harm while still doing whatever I can to help them know how to become rehabilitated, and while just leaving them, in that other place, until they make that choice.


Also, a brief comment that the scenario you outline, the "ticking time bomb" scenario, exists only on TV. In educating myself about real interrogation scenarios, I have found interrogators say that if they can get a suspect to talk about anything (beyond Name, Rank, and Number), they will talk about everything.
We had him talking, and he still wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.


I suppose that's true, but it's very difficult for humans to judge the veracity of another's claim to repentance. The old slogan "Trust, but verify" may be appropriate - and in some circumstances the gravity of the offense may require containing a person out of concern for recidivism.
Those who repent show by their own works that they have repented, or that they are in the process of repenting.

If they don't do it again, they have repented. If they do it again, they haven't repented, so they would still need to be rehabilitated while living somewhere else until they are willing to become rehabilitated.

The only thing society needs to do is make sure that people who sin know how to become rehabilitated while forgiving those who choose to be, and while also telling the offenders that the laws and punishments of God will apply to those who don't become rehabilitated.

[asdf]

The article has preconceived notions.

Difficult for an article to do much of anything. ***uming you meant the author has preconceived notions, don't we all?

But I find it odd that you consider the piece to be preconceived, considering that his opinions are postconceived in the light of the more than 300 interrogations he committed in Iraq.


It is not reporting, it is an opinion piece.Was there any claim otherwise?


As such, giving up Bin Laden is practically impossible, since even Bin Laden was highly trained by the CIA during the war against Russia in Afganistan. I don't know what you're saying "as such" to. Could you clarify what you mean in the transition from "opinion piece" to "giving up bin Laden"?


As soon as a high man is captured, I am sure Bin Laden does not stick to any place long enough, nor would he hang out with people that have not been tested. Can you imagine if we were to try to get an operative inside his organization? Can you imagine a CIA operative that purposefully terrorizes people just so he can get in the good graces of Bin Laden? How unethical would that be? Indeed, that scenario you imagined would be unethical. I don't see what it has to do with anything we're talking about.


I think the interrogator is naive in his own abilities about soft interrogation methods.He's not the only interrogator to report such. In any case, I consider someone who actually conducted interrogations, and was successful at them, to be a greater authority on the topic than your imagination.

I'd be very interested in reading Matthew Alexander's book, How to Break a Terrorist. He seems to know what he's talking about.


The Abu Graib incident was not part of interrogation methods that was alluded to in recruitmentWhat do you mean "alluded to in recruitment"? Whose recruitment?


it was soldiers that uploaded that information online.Again with blaming the whistle-****ers. I'm honestly baffled.


So attributing one thing to terror acts by the US that have not been leaked to bad soldiers doing something unrelated to interrogations and stating it was acts of terror is another thing entirely. Those bad soldiers were investigated and punished because what they did was unlawful,No. Those "bad soldiers" were scapegoated for the very practices that were approved at the highest levels of the US government.

Stress positions, exploitation of religious prohibitions, phobias, sexual humiliation, hypothermia, beatings, isolation...these were all approved as official policy.

(Yes, I am aware that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib went overboard, beyond what was authorized, particularly in the area of the sexual humiliation.)


the interrogators were not.Sorry, I'm not following you. What interrogators are you referring to?


I do not think the man in the article was privy to such information, but was only ***uming what he does not know.You're not at all "***uming what you don't know", are you? You're siding with what you think and deduce rather than on the testimony of those directly involved. Again, I would have hoped for better from a military man.


I do not think the National Interest is the most reliable source.Whatever the leanings of that particular magazine, the article in question was simply a guest contribution by one of the most qualified and experienced people who could possibly speak to the subject.


Official DOD, CIA, and Homeland Security documents that have been decl***ified are more important for the discussion.Great. Do you want to go through those?

How about starting here, from the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Senate report:
The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.
-Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (pdf (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/12112008_detaineeabuse.pdf)), December 2008

[asdf]

I agree, and I believe the only fit form of punishment for someone who refuses to repent from their sins, or infractions of God's laws, is to send them to live where they can do no more harm while still doing whatever I can to help them know how to become rehabilitated, and while just leaving them, in that other place, until they make that choice.

We had him talking, and he still wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

Those who repent show by their own works that they have repented, or that they are in the process of repenting.

If they don't do it again, they have repented. If they do it again, they haven't repented, so they would still need to be rehabilitated while living somewhere else until they are willing to become rehabilitated.

The only thing society needs to do is make sure that people who sin know how to become rehabilitated while forgiving those who choose to be, and while also telling the offenders that the laws and punishments of God will apply to those who don't become rehabilitated.

Sounds good. :)

[Columcille]

How about starting here, from the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Senate report:
The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.
-Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (pdf (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/12112008_detaineeabuse.pdf)), December 2008




29 page report. Who was on the committee. How many Republicans and how man Democrats? I would be interested to know just how Bipartisan it really was. There are a few Republicans that are so Democrat in everything but name, that I would not be surprised if the media says it is bipartisan only because of a select few Republicans.

As far as that person that was mentioned, the abuses in Abu Graib, you will have to be specific as to what kinds of abuses from Abu Graib that was used by Terrorists networks in their recruitment process. The beginning of the report you linked clearly states that they trump charges against the US that are false.
They are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam.. Now Terrorists can and do lie about a lot of things, and would still claim that we torture wether we actually did or not. So it is a mute point. Even if we didn't, it would not stop their lies to recruit people. I think you are still naive to ***ume that #5 is accurate, because it really comes down to how honest the Terrorists are in the first place.

[asdf]

29 page report. Who was on the committee. How many Republicans and how man Democrats? I would be interested to know just how Bipartisan it really was.

The Committee on Armed Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Armed_Services_Committee) is a committee of the United States Senate empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security), benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other matters related to defense policy.

Members, 111th Congress
The Committee is chaired by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, and the Ranking Minority Member is Republican John McCain of Arizona.

Majority
Carl Levin, Michigan, Chairman
Robert Byrd, West Virginia
Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut(*)
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Bill Nelson, Florida
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Jim Webb, Virginia
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Kay Hagan, North Carolina
Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark Begich, Alaska
Roland Burris, Illinois

(*)Joe Lieberman is an Independent Democrat, but caucuses with Democrats on the committee.

Minority
John McCain, Arizona, Ranking Member
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Susan Collins, Maine
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Thune, South Dakota
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
Richard Burr, North Carolina
David Vitter, Louisiana


There are a few Republicans that are so Democrat in everything but name, that I would not be surprised if the media says it is bipartisan only because of a select few Republicans. I'm not sure if you're satisfied that these members are Real True Republicans, but it's disappointing to me that you seem to consider torture to be a partisan issue.


As far as that person that was mentioned, the abuses in Abu Graib, you will have to be specific as to what kinds of abuses from Abu Graib that was used by Terrorists networks in their recruitment process. The beginning of the report you linked clearly states that they trump charges against the US that are false. . Now Terrorists can and do lie about a lot of things, and would still claim that we torture wether we actually did or not. So it is a mute point. Even if we didn't, it would not stop their lies to recruit people. Are you kidding me? Your grand apologia for the morality and acceptability of torture is that the terrorists might believe that we torture in ways other than the ways we actually tortured?

Never mind the photographic evidence, never mind the expert testimony, never mind the findings of investigative bodies, never mind the paper trails - the terrorists might exaggerate when they tell people about the atrocities the US commits!

Do you have any idea how preposterous that sounds?


I think you are still naive to ***ume that #5 is accurate, because it really comes down to how honest the Terrorists are in the first place.As I've been saying the whole time, yes - the terrorists lie and will continue to lie. What it "really comes down to" is how seriously those lies are taken by the general populace in the Muslim world.

[Bat-Man]

I think you are still naive to ***ume that #5 is accurate, because it really comes down to how honest the Terrorists are in the first place.

Here is point #5, again, as stated:

"It [torture] puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs."

I think all it takes to be able to agree with point #5 is the belief that those who torture would torture LESS if 'the other side' didn't torture them at all, and I can and do agree with that, even if those who torture would continue to torture more than those who do not torture any at all.

You may disagree, and you may think I am foolish, but I still believe that.

[asdf]

Here is point #5, again, as stated:

"It [torture] puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs."

I think all it takes to be able to agree with point #5 is the belief that those who torture would torture LESS if 'the other side' didn't torture them at all, and I can and do agree with that, even if those who torture would continue to torture more than those who do not torture any at all.

You may disagree, and you may think I am foolish, but I still believe that.

Thank you, Bat-Man, that's exactly what I hoped to get at.

In addition, when and if the enemy does capture and torture our troops, what basis does our government have for condemning it?

[Bat-Man]

Thank you, Bat-Man, that's exactly what I hoped to get at.

In addition, when and if the enemy does capture and torture our troops, what basis does our government have for condemning it?
Their basis is their belief that it is wrong.

Their problem is that nobody likes hypocrites, including terrorists.

[asdf]

Their basis is their belief that it is wrong.

But in all their memos and legal justification and television interviews, they are going out of their way to say it's not wrong.


Their problem is that nobody likes hypocrites, including terrorists.

Quite so.

[Trinity]

CIA Torture Just Bad Science, Report Says
Interrogation Techniques May Have Damaged Suspects' Ability To Provide Vital Information, Scientist Finds

(AP) The CIA's harsh interrogation program likely damaged the brain and memory functions of terrorist suspects, diminishing their physical ability to provide the detailed information the spy agency sought, according to a new scientific paper.

The paper by an Irish academic scrutinizes the harsh techniques used by the CIA under the Bush administration through the lens of neurobiology. Researchers concluded that the harsh methods were biologically counterproductive to eliciting quality information because prolonged stress harms the brain's ability to retain and recall information.

"Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or enhanced interrogation," according to the paper published Monday in the scientific journal, "Trends in Cognitive Science: Science and Society."

In the paper, Shane O'Mara, a professor at Ireland's Trinity College Ins***ute of Neuroscience, wrote that the severe interrogation techniques appear based on "folk psychology" - a layman's idea of how the brain works as opposed to science-based understanding of memory and cognitive function.
The list of techniques the CIA used included prolonged sleep deprivation - six days in at least one instance - being chained in painful positions, exploiting prisoners' phobias, and waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning that President Barack Obama has called torture. Three CIA prisoners were waterboarded, two of them extensively.

Those methods cause the brain to release stress hormones that, if their release is repeated and prolonged, may result in compromised brain function and even tissue loss, O'Mara wrote.

He warned that this could lead to brain lobe disorders, making the prisoners vulnerable to confabulation - the pathological production of false memories based on suggestions from an interrogator. Those false memories mix with true information in the interrogation, making it difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is fabricated.

Waterboarding is especially stressful "with the potential to cause widespread stress-induced changes in the brain, especially when these are repeated frequently and intensively," O'Mara wrote.

"The fact that the detrimental effects of these techniques on the brain are not visible to the naked eye makes them no less real," O'Mara wrote.

The paper also ***erted that forcibly exposing prisoners to what they are afraid of - the CIA got approval to use a suspect's fear of insects against him - is actually a method used to cure phobias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/national/main5327342.shtml

Trinity

[Bat-Man]

...The paper also ***erted that forcibly exposing prisoners to what they are afraid of - the CIA got approval to use a suspect's fear of insects against him - is actually a method used to cure phobias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/national/main5327342.shtml
I'd just like to add that you don't have to FORCE someone to confront their fears to cure them of their fears.

For example: To overcome a fear of bats, if you are afraid of them, you can simply choose to stand in the middle of a LOT of bats and eventually you won't be afraid of the bats anymore.

Of course, if they're vampire bats, you could end up dead due to a loss of too much blood, but at least you wouldn't be afraid anymore.

[Trinity]

I'd just like to add that you don't have to FORCE someone to confront their fears to cure them of their fears.

For example: To overcome a fear of bats, if you are afraid of them, you can simply choose to stand in the middle of a LOT of bats and eventually you won't be afraid of the bats anymore.

Of course, if they're vampire bats, you could end up dead due to a loss of too much blood, but at least you wouldn't be afraid anymore.

LOL

Trinity

[alanmolstad]

Torture works...thats the fact of life that the tree-huggers dont like to talk about.

The fact is that over 100s and 100s of years the history of how governments have learned things about each other is that the use Torture works .

It works, and it seems to work all the time.
It also helps confirm the results of other Torture .

In the real world what we have seen true for us and in our current wars is that there comes a time when you put a guy who might know something into a room, then you go in the same room and do what needs to be done to get the required information.

[asdf]

I stand by #3 above: "[Torture] leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court."


Did you (re)read this whole thread? I cited two former Army interrogators who explain how proper interrogation works, and why torture is an***hetical to the aim of good intelligence. Would you like me to dig up those links again?



Torture works.

"Torture works". That depends on what you mean by "works". A tortured person will say anything to get the torture to stop. That is torture's aim, and at that it is indeed successful. Surely it leads to confessions — but does it lead to good intelligence? I have not seen convincing evidence to suggest that it does (even if I were to admit for the sake of argument — which I emphatically do not — that the ends justify the means).


The fact is that over 100s and 100s of years the history of how governments have learned things about each other is that the use Torture works

That is absolutely untrue. For the entire history of the U.S., under every presidency from George Washington to William Clinton, torture has been explicitly forbidden. We have held courts-martial and war crimes tribunals against soldiers—both foreign and our own—who have tortured.


there comes a time when you put a guy who might know something into a room, then you go in the same room and do what needs to be done to get the required information.

That's horrific. I can only say that I'm glad that you're not in charge of political and military policy.

"A guy who might know something". Goodness. You even tacitly acknowledge the possibility of torturing the innocent.

In any case, it's fair enough if you want to publicly make an argument that the United States of America should, as a matter of public policy, use torture on those considered or suspected of being enemies of the state. Go ahead and make that argument. But first, ditch the treaties and conventions prohibiting it. Amend the UCMJ.

Don't try to pretend this is how things have always been. It's not.

[alanmolstad]

ahh....that report given to Congress proved that not only does it work, one of the main gains from its use is that one story can be backed-up by others,

So its not a case of a guy saying anything , rather over time and over different individuals you can verify a story.

Thus the one thing the tree-huggers dont want us to know is now shown to be true.....

it works....and works well...and has proved itself time and time again over the years to be the thing that will work when other forms of investigation prove to be useless.

[asdf]

ahh....that report given to Congress proved that not only does it work, one of the main gains from its use is that one story can be backed-up by others


I don't suppose you'd do me the courtesy of actually citing "that report given to Congress", would you?


Please, if torture "has proved itself time and time again" to be a more effective means of intelligence-gathering, then by all means cite some. Cite one. (Remember, it doesn't count if the torture victim was cooperative with interrogators before the torture begins, and it doesn't count if the torture occurs prior to attempting traditional interrogation.)


I seem to have forgotten that your preferred method of discourse is repeating yourself, without any citation or evidence or indication that you've read—let alone are making any attempt to respond to—the material above.

[alanmolstad]

I don't suppose you'd do me the courtesy of actually citing "that report given to Congress", would you?




I guess i could GOOGLE it for you.
But I remember the report was all in the news about a year or so ago.
The report was due to the reports about water-Boarding that we carried out in the effort to fight the wars and most importantly , to get Osama bin Laden.

getting bin Laden was behind the main push and the main reason this topic is in the news.

Apparently a lot of tree-huggers feel that "If we were just polite, and asked nicely" that the guys who knew where bin Laden was would whisper that location .....perhaps in exchange for ice cream?

The report's findings were that water-boarding actually worked...and worked well,,,and was very useful in the war effort and saved many American lives.



In the real world there are times when you have to go into a room with a guy who knows something you need to know, and do whatever it takes to walk out of that room with the information.

[alanmolstad]

the first hit on google...

http://www.startribune.com/121089124.html

[alanmolstad]

What we learn is that the use of stress to loosen a tongue works.
But it does not always work.
And it does not always get a person to tell the truth.

However sometimes if a person under great stress is still able to tell a lie, and you know it's a lie...then this points out that there has got to be a very good reason why a person would tell such a lie.

We dont like to think about what is going on in Egypt and North Korea right now, but the results are very clear.

North Korea has seen within the last year a purge due to a failed CIA effort to overthrow the current leadership (and put in place some other members of the Korean ruling family) this purge is the direct result of a lot of stress used against some of the highest members of the North Korean military.....

Also in Egypt (with the helping hand and financing of the CIA) they are using such stress in the weeding out members of the former elected party that were a threat to our interests and to our Egyptian military friends that we are very closely connected to.

Now a lot of people in our American/liberal leadership want us to think that the use of stress on people is not that useful, but the people that are tasked with the defense of this country know that it's a useful tool to have, and at times gives you results that you cant match by any other means.



It does not always work.

But over the history of this world it has shown more than enough times to have worked well enough to always keep around in case its needed.

It's like I said, - there are times in history where you have a guy in a room that knows something important, and you have to be able to go into that room with him and do whatever is necessary to be able to walk out of the room later with the information.

[asdf]

Thank you. I appreciate your pointing out which "report given to Congress" you were talking about—since there have been quite a few, such as that by the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the ​Cons***ution Project, and others.

But that "news" you cited is almost three years old, and does not demonstrate what you seem to think it does.

A few thoughts, in response:
1. The article you cited was by Adam Goldman at the AP. Here's what he reported one day later (http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-03/news/29499180_1_bin-personal-courier-abu-faraj):


"[Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed did not reveal the names [the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers] while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic."

2. At least you're admitting that waterboarding is torture. I do appreciate the eschewing of euphemism. Waterboarding is a controlled drowning experience, developed by the Spanish Inquisition, utilized by the Gestapo and the Khmer Rouge, among others, and internationally recognized and condemned as a torture technique throughout history. During WWII, the U.S. hanged Japanese troops who engaged in waterboarding.


Apparently a lot of tree-huggers feel that "If we were just polite, and asked nicely" that the guys who knew where bin Laden was would whisper that location .....perhaps in exchange for ice cream?

3. Nevermind the fact that KSM did, in fact, reveal what he knew under standard interrogation and not under torture. Nevermind that it was only by ***uming that KSM lie under torture that interrogators were able to get the truth from him, several months later. Nevermind that he explicitly admitted to providing false information, which he had supposed the interrogators wanted to hear, in order to stop the torture. Nevermind the testimony of those who have actually conducted interrogations honorably and effectively. You have some good jokes about "tree-huggers" to deploy, and you're not going to let silly things like facts get in the way.

[alanmolstad]

yes, torture works, and works like a charm.
Torture is the reason we know where to send in the drones.
It is of information gained via stress we place on people.
.

Ever wonder why the military in Egypt was able to overthrow their own elected government and no one at the White House said a word?
Ever wonder why President Obama keeps talking about sending aid to the rebels in Syria, but not a word about sending in aid to reestablish civilian rule in Egypt?

Its because Obama and the CIA have a long history of hiring military contractors out of Egypt to get information out of people...
We catch people in Afghanistan, fly them to Egypt.....and from there they seem to disappear...later parts of them get dumped into a ditch outside an Estonian village.

And next week there is a whole new list of targets in Pakistan for the drones to go after...

So not only does torture work well at finding out unknown things, it works best when you already know the truth and just need to see how far some people will go to hide a truth you already know.

The length people go to to maintain a lie under stress shows you the depth they must think their information has...
The lies people tell under stress show you many things.....

Thats why the data that suggests that "No secrets were learned" is a child's way of thinking about this issue. because most of the time you are not putting stress on people to learn a secret at all....You are just confirming what you already know to be true.

You also learn many things by seeing how far people will go to maintain a cover story.

I know that if my son was going to be sent in to a hostile area of the world, that first they should place everyone they have caught under a lot of stress, just to make sure the planners of my son's mission know what is to be expected.
So it's not that you are looking for new information at all.
You just are making sure there is nothing else to know.
You may not learn a single new thing after hours and hours of placeing stress on people....but that's fine.....if there was truly nothing to find out, no secret to learn, then thats also another fact that helps guide the mission planners.

[asdf]

You are welcome to regard the testimony of those actually involved in interrogations to be "a child's way of thinking". You may be surprised to discover that I regard their account to hold more weight than some random guy on the internet's opinion.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

You claim that if your son were to be headed to a hostile area, presumably in a military context, you'd want "everyone" around to be tortured. You don't mention whether you'd like him to be tortured by the other side if he were captured as a POW. Would you denounce your son's torture? Would you have any grounds to denounce it?