Torture

[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]

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?

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

1. It's illegal.

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

[asdf]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MacG

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]

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.

[asdf]

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

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

[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.

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]

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.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by asdf

...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]

Originally Posted by MacG

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]

Originally Posted by MacG

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]

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)

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

... 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]

Originally Posted by asdf

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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]

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.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

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]

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

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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]

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.