Torture

[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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

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?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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)

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

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)

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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 recruitment

What 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), December 2008

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

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), 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]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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 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]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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]

Originally Posted by asdf

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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/...n5327342.shtml

Trinity

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by Trinity

...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/...n5327342.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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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