CIA under investigation for threating to kill terrorist's children and rape mother

[wigon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_interrogations


Somehow I think that this story will make its way into the Arab media confirming that Americans are going around in Iraq and Afghanistan raping and killing Muslim women and children regularly. I already hear tons of allegations of that sort on the Jihadi YouTube videos.

Keep in mind that we already tried the "Salvadore Option" (fighting fire with fire as we did in El-Salvador during the Cold War) in Iraq when we had that huge spike in Shi'a death squads that got out of control hunting down Sunni's suspected of being affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
However just threatening to do it.... eh... that doesn't sound like a crime to me. The article mentioned them staging mock executions of other prisoners...I think that's a neat little trick.
It's just the physical torture that I have issues with as crossing a rather blurry line.

Wigon

[Chulo]

this is an on again off again issue with the obama administration. One day they will release pics, then they wont, then they will prosecute those people, then they wont. and now they will investigate if they should investigate and prosecute them.

The only thing it matches up to is the issue that are in the news, and the distraction they try to make it become. Poll numbers are slipping and he needs to polarize his supporters so might as well pull up one of his campaign promises and drum up the crowd.

[Van Gogh]

i say these news crews back the hell out of the situation and let the CIA do their job. You don't find information by offering candy.....wait maybe you do.....

[California Joe]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

[wigon]

I think that quote (wasn't it churchill who made that statement?) was about soldiers during wartime and not torturing. I think alot of Americans feel uncomfortable talking about torture especially if they are Christians (or claim to be). We also have to think about whether we want to be known as a nation that tortures our enemy prisoners. If you support torture, when is there too much torture??

For example... should we design institutes of torture where we design the most painful torture imaginable?

Can we exectute lower ranking terrorists in order to extract information from a senior terrorist?
Example: Taking a senior and junior terrorist up in a helicopter, gutting the junior and tying his intesting to a helicopter seat and then pushing him out to see if how long his small intestine really is.
Can terrorists be butt-raped and by whom?
Should we actually make do with the threats of killing or raping the families of terrorists in front of them?
Should the world know that we do such things to them?
And the bottom line- Are these techniques actually successful?

IF they are, should these techniques be applied to violent criminals who are American citizens? If not, why? If yes, why?


Wigon

[seraosha]

Orwell, duh.


Jesus, don't you kids read anymore?

[Laconian]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Attributed to George Orwell and I agreee


I think that quote (wasn't it churchill who made that statement?) was about soldiers during wartime and not torturing. I think alot of Americans feel uncomfortable talking about torture especially if they are Christians (or claim to be). We also have to think about whether we want to be known as a nation that tortures our enemy prisoners. If you support torture, when is there too much torture??

For example... should we design institutes of torture where we design the most painful torture imaginable?

Can we exectute lower ranking terrorists in order to extract information from a senior terrorist?
Example: Taking a senior and junior terrorist up in a helicopter, gutting the junior and tying his intesting to a helicopter seat and then pushing him out to see if how long his small intestine really is.
Can terrorists be butt-raped and by whom?
Should we actually make do with the threats of killing or raping the families of terrorists in front of them?
Should the world know that we do such things to them?
And the bottom line- Are these techniques actually successful?

IF they are, should these techniques be applied to violent criminals who are American citizens? If not, why? If yes, why?


Wigon

Most experts agree that torture is not a reliable technique. There is a difference between torture and intimidation and duress; and where I don't support torture, intimidation and duress can work.

I wholeheartedly support the prosecution of war crimes, but this prevalent attitude of investigating everyone for everything is getting a little much. And no torture and duress is not acceptable in the US because their are Constitutional protections.

[11 Bravo]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

I for once agree with you.

[LEGEND]

Did you see Inglorious Basterds? The method worked;) Bring out the BEAR JEW! ;)

[Seiran]

Did you see Inglorious Basterds? The method worked;) Bring out the BEAR JEW! ;)

HAHA! Nice. But sadly, let's face it even if we just fabricated (For those of you unfamiliar with big terms that means FAKE!!!) a rumor like that, Obama and his Crusaders would be running amok threatening everyone until the person doing those things was brought to justice.

It's sad that every little action now is being criticized and analyzed now.

[budgie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_interrogations


Somehow I think that this story will make its way into the Arab media confirming that Americans are going around in Iraq and Afghanistan raping and killing Muslim women and children regularly. I already hear tons of allegations of that sort on the Jihadi YouTube videos.



Of course they will, as a PR point it's a no-brainer. You reap what you sow.

[Weasel]

Disgusting.

[hskywalker]

I miss those allegations how evil states threat political dissident with their family, even there is no proof. But I guess cia is justified to do this kind of stuff, since it protects democracy and freedom.:)

[SniperLane]

I already hear tons of allegations of that sort on the Jihadi YouTube videos.


ooh so it must be true.






:cantbeli:

[homegrowncat]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.


Amen to that...not everyone can be a saint.

[SBL]

Of course they will, as a PR point it's a no-brainer. You reap what you sow.
What exactly was sown in this case?

[Jobu]

The CIA exists to do our dirty work. I have no problem with it.

[RxOnco]

What exactly are they under investigation for? Threats? Give me a f*cking break.

Personally, I wouldn't care if they actually followed through on them. But that's just me.

[Weasel]

What exactly are they under investigation for? Threats? Give me a f*cking break.

Personally, I wouldn't care if they actually followed through on them. But that's just me.

Fair enough. China and terrorists do it aswell.

[LineDoggie]

I miss those allegations how evil states threat political dissident with their family, even there is no proof. But I guess cia is justified to do this kind of stuff, since it protects democracy and freedom.:)

At least the CIA isnt selling their organs........

[JKD]

Personally, I wouldn't care if they actually followed through on them. But that's just me.

You're okay with murdering children and raping women?

[Chulo]

What exactly are they under investigation for? Threats? Give me a f*cking break.

Personally, I wouldn't care if they actually followed through on them. But that's just me.
Its not even an investigation on the events. Rather, it is an investigation on IF the Obama administration should start an investigation and pursue the players in the events.

[RxOnco]

You're okay with murdering children and raping women?

On the surface, no. But if/when in the theater of war, it comes down to it to save troops' lives or the lives of my own children, sure.

Now, of course I'm not completely serious in stating that I'm ok with killing children and raping women. However, we're quick to lose sight of the fact that we're currently at war. Our methods of fighting wars have greatly become wussified over the last 40+ years.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[TehSuig]

If the Taliban captured me and all they did was threaten me or tell me they were going to rape my mother; I'd be thrilled! Atleast they don't plan on CUTTING MY ****ING HEAD OFF!

These bleeding hearts in Washington seem to have forgotten who's on the recieving end of this "torture."

[Stormz_STA]

On the surface, no. But if/when in the theater of war, it comes down to it to save troops' lives or the lives of my own children, sure.


How's it going, Adolf?

[LineDoggie]

On the surface, no. But if/when in the theater of war, it comes down to it to save troops' lives or the lives of my own children, sure.

Now, of course I'm not completely serious in stating that I'm ok with killing children and raping women. However, we're quick to lose sight of the fact that we're currently at war. Our methods of fighting wars have greatly become wussified over the last 40+ years.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Sorry Raping Children has no excuse ever, period, end of. You will never convince me of the Military or National Security Neccessity of Raping a Child.

Intimidation isnt torture though, but there has to be a Line that cant be crossed

[SBL]

On the surface, no. But if/when in the theater of war, it comes down to it to save troops' lives or the lives of my own children, sure.

Now, of course I'm not completely serious in stating that I'm ok with killing children and raping women. However, we're quick to lose sight of the fact that we're currently at war. Our methods of fighting wars have greatly become wussified over the last 40+ years.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Nice backpedal, killer.

[little icebear]

Too many 24 fanboys out there...

[Macs.]

If the Taliban captured me and all they did was threaten me or tell me they were going to rape my mother; I'd be thrilled! Atleast they don't plan on CUTTING MY ****ING HEAD OFF!

These bleeding hearts in Washington seem to have forgotten who's on the recieving end of this "torture."

So you lower yourself to the standards of the enemy ? But why bother fighting terrorist then, if you use the same tactics ?


That information like this surfaces is once again a great **** up by Washington, and all nations that are deploying troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will have to pay it. One more reason to pull out. If they are desperate to pull stuff like this, why not atleast keep quiet about it ?

[RxOnco]

Sorry Raping Children has no excuse ever, period, end of. You will never convince me of the Military or National Security Neccessity of Raping a Child.

Intimidation isnt torture though, but there has to be a Line that cant be crossed

I believe I said the Raping of "women" not "children." I simply support "killing" them.

And I wasn't back peddling. I'd be in full support of killing everyone and everything over there if it would mean getting rid of 'em.

[Stormz_STA]

I believe I said the Raping of "women" not "children." I simply support "killing" them.

Are you a member of armed forces?

[Noons86]

I believe I said the Raping of "women" not "children." I simply support "killing" them.


That's quite a defense.

[Macs.]

I believe I said the Raping of "women" not "children." I simply support "killing" them.


rofl

You are a champ. A real toughguy.

[LineDoggie]

So you lower yourself to the standards of the enemy ? But why bother fighting terrorist then, if you use the same tactics ? To win against a savage group who would kill My entire Country if they had the Opportunity and Means. Survival, the most Basic of Human instincts. It's fine and dandy to have high moral standards, but if your people are dead, it doesnt really matter , does it?



That information like this surfaces is once again a great **** up by Washington, and all nations that are deploying troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will have to pay it. One more reason to pull out. If they are desperate to pull stuff like this, why not atleast keep quiet about it ?Because the new administration wants to get points and it deflects domestic attention from the Healthcare Fiasco and Trillions for Clunkers......

[RxOnco]

Are you a member of armed forces?

Nope...what's your point?

[Stormz_STA]

Nope...what's your point?

Good. For the armed forces of course. People like you, who are willing to commit such hideous acts like raping women and killing children should never be allowed to serve. You're a fvckin POS.

[SBL]

That information like this surfaces is once again a great **** up by Washington, and all nations that are deploying troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will have to pay it. One more reason to pull out. If they are desperate to pull stuff like this, why not atleast keep quiet about it ?
Desperation or capitalizing on a useful reputation?

[RxOnco]

Good. For the armed forces of course. People like you, who are willing to commit such hideous acts like raping women and killing children should never be allowed to serve. You're a fvckin POS.

Hey, call me what you want. I'd rather be on the winning side, led by a bunch of pieces of sh1t than with the losers led by a bunch of moral blowhards who are afraid of offending the enemy.

[little icebear]

. . . if they had the Opportunity and Means.

They don´t.

[little icebear]

Hey, call me what you want. I'd rather be on the winning side, led by a bunch of pieces of sh1t than with the losers led by a bunch of moral blowhards who are afraid of offending the enemy.

Are you suggesting that there is the slightest possibility that ze evil terrorists might win if the USA would be too reluctant?

LOL. Yeah, sure. :D

[Meatwad]

Hey now I get it. Morals are the enemy!

[LineDoggie]

They don´t. They've tried , and no one's said they wont continue to try.

[Jµµso]

Hey, call me what you want. I'd rather be on the winning side, led by a bunch of pieces of sh1t than with the losers led by a bunch of moral blowhards who are afraid of offending the enemy.


I think that talebans might need men like you. woot

[RxOnco]

Are you suggesting that there is the slightest possibility that ze evil terrorists might win if the USA would be too reluctant?

LOL. Yeah, sure. :D

There's always gonna be the "slightest possibility." Just ask the Russians how much they enjoyed A-stan.

[little icebear]

There's always gonna be the "slightest possibility." Just ask the Russians how much they enjoyed A-stan.

The Taliban insurgency and A-holes, blowing up buildings in your own country are two different things.
And if you believe that Terrorism was finished once and for all, if only Afghanistan was a stable country (which it wont be anytime soon) you must have been drinking gallons of kool-aid.

[RxOnco]

The Taliban insurgency and A-holes, blowing up buildings in your own country are two different things.
And if you believe that Terrorism was finished once and for all, if only Afghanistan was a stable country (which it wont be anytime soon) you must have been drinking gallons of kool-aid.

Sure it is...only because we brought the fight to them. Otherwise, they'd currently be plotting their next attack. Which they are anyway.

Never said that Terra would be gone once and for all. If we were to wipe Afghanistan clean, then we should move on to the next until we rid ourselves of them or they back down.

And I happen to like Kool-Aid. Haven't had it since I was a kid though.

[little icebear]

Sure it is...only because we brought the fight to them.

Sure... all those illiterate rag-heads the coalition is fighting over there would be here in the West, blowing sh*t up... rofl

"We brought the fight to them" Great joke, dude... fvcking A. rofl


If we were to wipe Afghanistan clean, then we should move on to the next until we rid ourselves of them or they back down.

Sounds logical... if you´re like 10yo or so, playing with GI Joe action figures in the living room...

[Macs.]

Sure it is...only because we brought the fight to them. Otherwise, they'd currently be plotting their next attack. Which they are anyway.

Here is some shocking news to you:

Islamic/Al-Kaida terrorism didn't stop after Afghanistan was invaded. London, Madrid, just two big examples. Secondly the Taliban never has carried out a terror attack outside Afghanistan-Pakistan.

After all it helps when you atleast know who your enemy is. Al-Kaida and the Taliban aren't the same thing nor do they fight for the same goals.

[RxOnco]

Sure... all those illiterate rag-heads the coalition is fighting over there would be here in the West, blowing sh*t up... rofl

"We brought the fight to them" Great joke, dude... fvcking A. rofl



Sounds logical... if you´re like 10yo or so, playing with GI Joe action figures in the living room...

That must have been, and evidently still is, the thought process of yours and many others shortly before September 11th.
As we saw then, those "illiterate rag-heads" don't need to park aircraft carriers on our coasts and airdrop thousands of troops on our land in order to bring our country to a standstill. A rag-tag group of 19 managed just fine.

And no, I'm not suggesting that we conquer the world in "GI Joe" fashion. I'm simply saying that hot-spot areas like Afghanistan need to be cleaned up. In order to do that, there needs to be a little more cleanin' and a lot less worrying about who we're offending.

[Connaught Ranger]

And no, I'm not suggesting that we conquer the world in "GI Joe" fashion. I'm simply saying that hot-spot areas like Afghanistan need to be cleaned up. In order to do that, there needs to be a little more cleanin' and a lot less worrying about who we're offending.

Quoted for its stupidity content. :roll:

[RxOnco]

Here is some shocking news to you:

Islamic/Al-Kaida terrorism didn't stop after Afghanistan was invaded. London, Madrid, just two big examples. Secondly the Taliban never has carried out a terror attack outside Afghanistan-Pakistan.

After all it helps when you atleast know who your enemy is. Al-Kaida and the Taliban aren't the same thing nor do they fight for the same goals.

Yes...I know that they're not the same thing.

It was, however, the Taliban that continued to harbour A/Q and give them safe haven. Along the same lines, one can safely say that it's the A/Q network who is providing significant funding for the Taliban insurgency.

[RxOnco]

Quoted for its stupidity content. :roll:

Quoted...so I can see just one more of Connaught Ranger's inevitable :roll:'s.

[Connaught Ranger]

Happy to oblige:-


Are you a member of armed forces?


Nope...what's your point?

Hey, call me what you want. I'd rather be on the winning side, led by a bunch of pieces of sh1t than with the losers led by a bunch of moral blowhards who are afraid of offending the enemy.

The answer to the question in itself is very interesting,

seems you have all the answers, which is typical for a blow-hard-know-it-all

but very little resolve to take the fight to the enemy,

which is typical for a lily-livered chicken.

Connaught Ranger.p-)

[Weasel]

Islamists want the downfall of western civilisation, moral, values. People like RxOnco help reaching this goal.

[RxOnco]

Happy to oblige:-





The answer to the question in itself is very interesting,

seems you have all the answers, which is typical for a blow-hard-know-it-all

but very little resolve to take the fight to the enemy,

which is typical for a lily-livered chicken.

Connaught Ranger.p-)

Where's the ":roll:". This just wouldn't be a CR post without one.

You're welcome to go back and review my posts of past and find the reason as to why I'm not in the service. It's not by choice.

[RxOnco]

Islamists want the downfall of western civilisation, moral, values. People like RxOnco help reaching this goal.

I have plenty of all the above mentioned. I just happen to "value" my own family and friends more than that of a bunch of terrorists.

[Pete031]

Seems to me, you have no values whatsoever.

[futurepilot2004]

You're welcome to go back and review my posts of past and find the reason as to why I'm not in the service. It's not by choice.

Is it because you told them you wanted to kill children and rape women??

[RxOnco]

Is it because you told them you wanted to kill children and rape women??

That, and the pink skirt and high heels I wore to MEPS.

[Weasel]

I have plenty of all the above mentioned. I just happen to "value" my own family and friends more than that of a bunch of terrorists.

Sorry, can´t see any of these values in you. I guess you call yourself a godly christian as well.

[RxOnco]

Sorry, can´t see any of these values in you. I guess you call yourself a godly christian as well.

That's too bad. I won't lose any sleep over it though.

And no, I don't call myself a Godly Christian.

[Atlantic Friend]

CIA under investigation for threating to kill terrorist's children and rape mother

The only problem with that kind of threat is... if the guy shrugs it off, doesn't buy it and calls the bluff, then the choice is between admitting it was an empty threat and actually raping/killing the suspect's kids and mother. It's a lose-lose situation for the intel agency IMHO.

The use of torture as an investigation tool is already pushing the envelope, I'm not sure there are too many people who feel okay about making rape a law-enforcement tool.

[Raptus_regaliter]

It's good to see that calls for genocide are alive and well. Yahoo!

[CPLHUNTER]

That must have been, and evidently still is, the thought process of yours and many others shortly before September 11th.
As we saw then, those "illiterate rag-heads" don't need to park aircraft carriers on our coasts and airdrop thousands of troops on our land in order to bring our country to a standstill. A rag-tag group of 19 managed just fine.

And no, I'm not suggesting that we conquer the world in "GI Joe" fashion. I'm simply saying that hot-spot areas like Afghanistan need to be cleaned up. In order to do that, there needs to be a little more cleanin' and a lot less worrying about who we're offending.

x2 quoted for truth.

America runs around all day making sure we don't offend the radical muslims when in reality we forget that our very existence is offensive to them.

AQ operating freely in A-stan before our invasion and was supported by the Taliban. Yes they did manage a few attacks in the few years after 9/11 but they have been quite for a while.

Why is that you ask? Because they are too busy hiding in a cave from drones than running around in training camps in A-stan & Pakistan.

[CPLHUNTER]

The only problem with that kind of threat is... if the guy shrugs it off, doesn't buy it and calls the bluff, then the choice is between admitting it was an empty threat and actually raping/killing the suspect's kids and mother. It's a lose-lose situation for the intel agency IMHO.

The use of torture as an investigation tool is already pushing the envelope, I'm not sure there are too many people who feel okay about making rape a law-enforcement tool.

The question is - how would some rag head sitting in Gitmo really know if we sent a team of top secret ninjas out to kill his family?

[Jobu]

The only problem with that kind of threat is... if the guy shrugs it off, doesn't buy it and calls the bluff, then the choice is between admitting it was an empty threat and actually raping/killing the suspect's kids and mother. It's a lose-lose situation for the intel agency IMHO.

The use of torture as an investigation tool is already pushing the envelope, I'm not sure there are too many people who feel okay about making rape a law-enforcement tool.

I think you have a poor understanding of the situation we're talking about.

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, we're talking about KSM, Zubaydah, and the other high value AQ captures. If you threatened to hurt their families in order to extract information, it wouldn't matter if it's a bluff because the detainees have no means of learning what's going on in the outside world. They may never know whether it's a real threat or not.

These idiots were not exactly being granted conjugal visits and monthly telephone calls home.

[Atlantic Friend]

The question is - how would some rag head sitting in Gitmo really know if we sent a team of top secret ninjas out to kill his family?

It's usually up to the one who threatens to show that its wasn't just idle talk. If he doesn't, what is to prevent the "rag head" to decide it is an empty threat and clam up?

[CPLHUNTER]

It's usually up to the one who threatens to show that its wasn't just idle talk. If he doesn't, what is to prevent the "rag head" to decide it is an empty threat and clam up?

Some convincing photoshop pictures p-)

[Atlantic Friend]

I think you have a poor understanding of the situation we're talking about.

Gee, I sure hope I my comprehension of the linked article isn't as poor as my understanding of the situation then, Jobu :


A newly declassified version of a CIA report revealed Monday that CIA interrogators once threatened to kill a Sept. 11 suspect's children and suggested another would be forced to watch his mother ******ly assaulted.

Do I read 'suspects'? My, yes I do indeed. But I may have poor eyesight as well. ;)


I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, we're talking about KSM, Zubaydah, and the other high value AQ captures.If you threatened to hurt their families in order to extract information, it wouldn't matter if it's a bluff because the detainees have no means of learning what's going on in the outside world. They may never know whether it's a real threat or not.

If we are talking about hardened terrorists, people imbalanced enough to plot and organize terror attacks, do you seriously think simple bluff and empty threats followed by nothing more than solitary confinment will do the trick?


These idiots were not exactly being granted conjugal visits and monthly telephone calls home.

Precisely. These guys are in solitary confinment. They already cannot see their spouse(s), kids and parents. So how do you convince them that it was not just an empty threat?

[Jobu]

It's usually up to the one who threatens to show that its wasn't just idle talk. If he doesn't, what is to prevent the "rag head" to decide it is an empty threat and clam up?

It doesn't matter. Threats can be just about planting that seed. The AQ captures like KSM and Zubaydah had nothing but time to stress about it. I imagine after being waterboarded a few dozen times, KSM probably believed Americans were capable of being cruel sons of bitches.

[Atlantic Friend]

It doesn't matter. Threats can be just about planting that seed. The AQ captures like KSM and Zubaydah had nothing but time to stress about it. I imagine after being waterboarded a few dozen times, KSM probably believed Americans were capable of being cruel sons of bitches.

But he actually got waterboarded. Here it's like the terrorist is threatened to be waterboarded and nothing come, except possibly he's shown a bottle of water from time to time.

[Jobu]

Precisely. These guys are in solitary confinment. They already cannot see their spouse(s), kids and parents. So how do you convince them that it was not just an empty threat?

You don't have to.

[DeltaWhisky58]

I believe I said the Raping of "women" not "children." I simply support "killing" them.

And I wasn't back peddling. I'd be in full support of killing everyone and everything over there if it would mean getting rid of 'em.

This is outrageous!

[Connaught Ranger]

That, and the pink skirt and high heels I wore to MEPS.

And that was just to get out of serving your country and not because you have any real "gay" tendency's I suppose. :roll:

You just want a free ride, typical of people with the "me, me, all for me", attitude, that has crept into the world, without a thought as to what others must sacrifice, so you can have what you want.

Insert puking icon here -> <-

Connaught Ranger.

[Connaught Ranger]

That's too bad. I won't lose any sleep over it though.

And no, I don't call myself a human being.

Fixed it for yaaa! Free of charge as its "Help a dumb animal day!"woot

[commanding]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

x2.....bravo CJ....

[CPLHUNTER]

And that was just to get out of serving your country and not because you have any real "gay" tendency's I suppose. :roll:

You just want a free ride, typical of people with the "me, me, all for me", attitude, that has crept into the world, without a thought as to what others must sacrifice, so you can have what you want.

Insert puking icon here -> <-

Connaught Ranger.

I assume you are responding to his sarcasm with your own? Cause if you're serious then I feel for ya.

[Weasel]

x2.....bravo CJ....

And I thought it was sarcasm.

[Henry's Fork]

And I thought it was sarcasm.

Of course you did. roflroflrofl

[little icebear]

Because they are too busy hiding in a cave from drones than running around in training camps in A-stan & Pakistan.

The ones we (= people living in the US and other western countries) need to be worried about are not anywhere near Afghanistan.

In order to prevent 9/11, bombing Hamburg would have made more sense than invading Afghanistan.
Everyone who believes that AQ depends on a base in a failed state in order to keep up their operations is a tool. That´s why this "we´re taking the fight to the enemy"-blabla is just that: Bull****.



As we saw then, those "illiterate rag-heads"


Were no "illiterate rag heads" but western based, educated, seemingly integrated men who had not much in common, with the kind of enemy, ISAF is fighting in A´stan. That´s my point.

[LineDoggie]

The ones we (= people living in the US and other western countries) need to be worried about are not anywhere near Afghanistan.

In order to prevent 9/11, bombing Hamburg would have made more sense than invading Afghanistan.
Everyone who believes that AQ depends on a base in a failed state in order to keep up their operations is a tool. That´s why this "we´re taking the fight to the enemy"-blabla is just that: Bull****. Riiiiiiight, because in Hamburg AQ is able to openly train in Small Arms use, Assassinations, etc. and no one would notice them. rofl Face it Afghanistan was AQ's home base of operations with a friendly host government

They continue to engage in Afghanistan as it suits them to do so in gaining operational experience(TTP's) and in helping fellow religious zealots against infidels....

[little icebear]

Riiiiiiight, because in Hamburg AQ is able to openly train in Small Arms use, Assassinations, etc. and no one would notice them.

Yeah! Because jumping over an obstacle course and shooting an AK was EXACTLY what the 9/11 attackers or the Madrid / London or the embassy bombers in Kenya needed so desperately... there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you could start your career in terrorism without the support of stupid fvckheads in Somalia or Afghanistan or some other 3rd world country ready to provide a home cave, äh, mud hud, äh, oh: HEADQUARTER... that´s the word I was looking for.
You just need it!

[LineDoggie]

Rant much?

[little icebear]

Political Discussions and RANTS

Guilty as charged. p-)

[Hispeed1]

Rough times for the company. They shouldn't be investigated or anybody there prosecuted. Oooh-verbal threats against a terrorist, get the ACLU! F that-any terrorist caught killing innocent people or are proven to plan to do so don't have any rights IMHO. The moment you (terrorists) decide to do harm against civilians, succesful or otherwise you're done. Don't these fvkheads know that any one of these radical militant crazies will not hesitate to kill you if they had the chance, and now they're worried about "verbally abusive threats" against them. F that. This is war, this is the reality. Suck it up. Why do I feel that in this climate something big and bad might just happen-because some people are too soft to kick evil in the teeth.

[commanding]

Verbal threats to detainees...is that against the law? I have taken the concealed handgun course at least three times now, and each time they tell me that verbal threats are no reason to pull a weapon and shoot someone. Verbal threats, are just that. Someone says "I'm gonna kill you". big deal. Someone says "I'm gonna chop up your momma with an axe and run her thru a wood chipper." big deal. Someone says "I'm gonna drill a hole in your head with this drill." big deal.

As far as I know that is not against the law for one US citizen to say to another, much less some scumbag captured on the battlefield in Afghan. with explosive residue on his hands.

[commanding]

And I thought it was sarcasm.

May have been....so what.

[JKD]

Verbal threats to detainees...is that against the law? I have taken the concealed handgun course at least three times now, and each time they tell me that verbal threats are no reason to pull a weapon and shoot someone. Verbal threats, are just that. Someone says "I'm gonna kill you". big deal. Someone says "I'm gonna chop up your momma with an axe and run her thru a wood chipper." big deal. Someone says "I'm gonna drill a hole in your head with this drill." big deal.

As far as I know that is not against the law for one US citizen to say to another, much less some scumbag captured on the battlefield in Afghan. with explosive residue on his hands.

I don't know about threatening to murder someone's children or rape his mother but threatening that person with death and mock executions are illegal
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

[IMTT]

Wow; verbal threats, talking bad and thinking mean things! We'll have none of that...

[BloodyTalon]

Yeah! Because jumping over an obstacle course and shooting an AK was EXACTLY what the 9/11 attackers or the Madrid / London or the embassy bombers in Kenya needed so desperately... there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you could start your career in terrorism without the support of stupid fvckheads in Somalia or Afghanistan or some other 3rd world country ready to provide a home cave, äh, mud hud, äh, oh: HEADQUARTER... that´s the word I was looking for.
You just need it!
You seriously can't be THAT ignorant. That's like saying all you do in bootcamp is get a haircut and march up and down a square for a few months until they send you to Afghanistan.

[commanding]

I don't know about threatening to murder someone's children or rape his mother but threatening that person with death and mock executions are illegal
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

you may be right, I honestly don't know. all I know is that I understand that a US citizen can verbally threaten someone (legally), and the way I understand it that it is not against the law. However the simple matter of touching someone is "battery" the way it was explained to me. One of my instructors was ex Seal and he got arrested for touching a guy in an apartment doorway.

[IMTT]

No talking bad, no threatening, no water-boarding, no sleep dep, no ruses to gain intel, no ummm whatever else? Perhaps we should get out of the bussiness of intelligence gathering from suspected terrorists altogether. "All we are saying is give peace a chance!"

[IMTT]

"there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you could start your career in terrorism without the support of stupid fvckheads in Somalia or Afghanistan or some other 3rd world country ready to provide a home cave, äh, mud hud, äh, oh: HEADQUARTER... that´s the word I was looking for. You just need it!"

I tend to think Scandinavia, the Netherlands, the UK, France and the USA are some better places to start your new career path and seem to be way more productive and safe since our naive politically correct societies and laws tend to hamstring us. Besides being target rich with weak kneed buffoons...

[Seiran]

you may be right, I honestly don't know. all I know is that I understand that a US citizen can verbally threaten someone (legally), and the way I understand it that it is not against the law. However the simple matter of touching someone is "battery" the way it was explained to me. One of my instructors was ex Seal and he got arrested for touching a guy in an apartment doorway.

The thing about verbally threatening someone, is all in how the person the comment(s) is/are directed at perceives them. If they laugh and don't take them seriously, then it's not a crime. However if they are genuinely scared at the remarks, then they are an illegal threat and punishable.

And yea, battery is a cheap shot like that.

On topic - All this political correctness in war fighting needs to stop.

[Lau]

I just love the wide support for torture on this board, gives it some spice! :)

[Weasel]

I just love the wide support for torture on this board, gives it some spice! :)

Didn´t change too much since we burned witches, eh? p-)

[wigon]

Originally Posted by Lau http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4366080#post4366080)
I just love the wide support for torture on this board, gives it some spice! :-)



Exactly. Those of you who support torture and murder/rape of Muslim women and children: How would you go about doing this "patriotic" duty if you are man enough to kill a defenseless woman or child? Would you do it slowly in front of the terrorist? Chop off some fingers? Gouge out the kid's eyeballs? Strangle them where they make that horrible gargling sound? Behead some little girl with a dull knife like the Jihadis do? Let a dog rip them apart? Poke holes in them with a drill? Electrocute them? Since you support such things surely you are capable of doing the deed no? If not, then you are weaklings and hypocrits by insisting that others should do it for you. So please give detail how you would conduct the murder of these people since you support this strategy. Also if you did this, would you allow your own child to witness Daddy at work? If not, then why if its so patriotic?

Wigon

[RxOnco]

Exactly. Those of you who support torture and murder/rape of Muslim women and children: How would you go about doing this "patriotic" duty if you are man enough to kill a defenseless woman or child? Would you do it slowly in front of the terrorist? Chop off some fingers? Gouge out the kid's eyeballs? Strangle them where they make that horrible gargling sound? Behead some little girl with a dull knife like the Jihadis do? Let a dog rip them apart? Poke holes in them with a drill? Electrocute them? Since you support such things surely you are capable of doing the deed no? If not, then you are weaklings and hypocrits by insisting that others should do it for you. So please give detail how you would conduct the murder of these people since you support this strategy. Also if you did this, would you allow your own child to witness Daddy at work? If not, then why if its so patriotic?

Wigon

Wow...calm down.


What exactly are they under investigation for? Threats? Give me a f*cking break.

Personally, I wouldn't care if they actually followed through on them. But that's just me.

Here's what I said and I still stand by it. I don't care. What the CIA does over in God knows where to "keep me safe" is fine with me. I'll stand to support them. Whatever it is. Now, do I truely believe that they would ever do these things? Not really.

[wigon]

Wow...calm down.



Here's what I said and I still stand by it. I don't care. What the CIA does over in God knows where to "keep me safe" is fine with me. I'll stand to support them. Whatever it is. Now, do I truely believe that they would ever do these things? Not really.


Ah now we're getting somewhere. The issue is why would they not do these things? That gets to the core of the matter and our humanity as well as what makes most of us different from the worst terrorists (or of the same mentality). Now, I'm not just interested on whether the CIA would want to do such things, but about whether you would find yourself capable of doing such things. If not, I respectfully request that you ask yourself why and to be honest with yourself.
I'm very much interested in how you truly feel about this issue at the most basic level.

If you do not wish to answer that question, could you say that this discussion has made you think a bit more critically about the issue? I'm not trying to put you down, or disrespect your opinion, but rather to understand you by "keep'n it real" with vivid discriptive examples of what we're talking about in order to get to the heart of the issue.
I too have a potentially extremely violent side to me so I am not judging you. I'm just seeking to better understand the raw basic human nature that drives such beliefs.

Wigon

[Weasel]

What the CIA does over in God knows where to "keep me safe" is fine with me. I'll stand to support them.

You should move to North Korea, Iran or China. A democracy is definately the wrong political and social system for you.

[wigon]

You should move to North Korea, Iran or China. A democracy is definately the wrong political and social system for you.


Don't judge him. He is brave enough to say what alot of people on this forum believe. Hear him out as its very important to understand their position at the most basic level even if you disagree.

Wigon

[Weasel]

Don't judge him. He is brave enough to say what alot of people on this forum believe. Hear him out as its very important to understand their position at the most basic level even if you disagree.

Wigon

Just makes me wonder why such people think they can bring freedom and democracy to other people and countries. They didn´t even understand the basics of freedom and democracy.

[wigon]

They do understand "freedom and democracy" from their world view. You can't expect somene who was raised under very different circumstances to have the same world view as yourself. That's why, while you may want to challenge them, you must show respect and understanding rather then putting them down. I don't think he's stupid. I think he's using a very specific form of logic that under certain circumstances is quite valid to people around the world. The important thing is to understand the context of their beliefs and to have a dialog based on mutual respect. It's only then that people open their minds a bit rather then instinctually raising defensive psychological barriers that blocks anything challenging to their core beliefs. We all have core beliefs and its not comfortable at all when they are challenged....myself included. Mastermind challenged mine with good points regarding the negative aspects of the current National Health Care proposal for example.

What I am demonstrating is what the acclaimed science fiction author, Frank Herbert, called "Mentat Logic." It comes from the Roman practice of a chariot rider jumping onto the two horses guiding his chariot with one foot on each horse. The theory is that by understanding multiple and often contradicting idealogical/theoretical views on an issue, you can eventually reach a highly accurate decision if you give each view the least biased analysis as you are capable of. Some people are better at this then others as it requires enormous patience and suspense of assumptions, beliefs, and biases. I am not saying I'm perfect at this. I am not, but I have my moments of clarity. It is something that, like most difficult things, requires constant practice. It is also one of the principles of the 4-fields approach in Anthropology (although rarely described in such a manner). In essence it is the holistic approach of social science based in part by grounded theory. Sadly this approach has no real name in the social sciences which usually end up arguing one theory or another instead of admitting that all theories are fluid and temporary. Arguing only one theoretical approach (or world view) blinds a person to alternative theories if they endeavor to proving just one theory for purely egotistical or professional (academic) purposes.
It is one reason why I have a low regard for pure academia that is not grounded in real world problem solving from a holistic perspective. I refer to such academic writings in social science journals as "intellectual masturbation" as it serves no real-world purpose and often just clouds the issues with guys (and female academics) comparing the size of their *****/brains.


Wigon

[Weasel]

Ignorance is bliss. Let´s be generous. p-)

[wigon]

Ignorance is bliss. Let´s be generous. p-)


No, you missed the entire point of what I said. Please read it again carefully. If not, then in a nutshell, I am respectfully asking for you to put your ego aside and attempt to understand the world through an other person's eyes and life experience by first showing respect (even in the face of contempt) and an attempt to understand their rationale.
That is what is called dialog. Telling them that they are "ignorant" or calling them nastier names is just insulting someone and arguing pointlessly.

But then again some people just enjoy arguing and I recognize that in others as well as sometimes in myself. The point is NOT to be politically correct but rather to get someone with a different opinion to listen to your beliefs with an open mind and with mutual respect.

Wigon

[Weasel]

I read and understood your post and point of view. But for some topics I am not able and/or willing to be tolerant. Torture is such a topic.

[RxOnco]

...Now, I'm not just interested on whether the CIA would want to do such things, but about whether you would find yourself capable of doing such things. If not, I respectfully request that you ask yourself why and to be honest with yourself.
I'm very much interested in how you truly feel about this issue at the most basic level...

Wigon

I guess, if we're in some type of hypothetical world...sure.

If you want to know how I truly feel about this issue at the most basic level, here it is:

I don't give a f**k about those people. They have one goal and one goal only...to kill as many of us as possible. For that, I could care less what happens to them, or their family. Sure, some have no choice and have been born or married into the life. Well, tough sh!t.

So, when it comes to torture...f**k 'em. Do whatever it takes.

That's basically what I think.

Flame away hippies.

[little icebear]

Sure, some have no choice and have been born or married into the life. Well, tough sh!t.


Yeah... and some of them might be... innocent. That tends to happen every now and then, when security outfits are given free hand to snatch people from the streets without anyone to look over their shoulders, with suspects that don´t have any rights at all.

But hey... it´s for the greater good, isn´t it?


BTW:

Funny how right-wing folks get their panties in a twist when someone suggests that they should pay taxes for healthcare but they don´t mind spending billions over billions for some phony wars with questionable success...

[California Joe]

Are swirlies and pink bellies still allowed?

[wigon]

I guess, if we're in some type of hypothetical world...sure.

If you want to know how I truly feel about this issue at the most basic level, here it is:

I don't give a f**k about those people. They have one goal and one goal only...to kill as many of us as possible. For that, I could care less what happens to them, or their family. Sure, some have no choice and have been born or married into the life. Well, tough sh!t.

So, when it comes to torture...f**k 'em. Do whatever it takes.

That's basically what I think.

Flame away hippies.


It still doesn't answer whether you would be willing to do the job of killing women and children yourself. It's one thing to have such beliefs and not care about whether someone does those things to Muslims. But its quite another to say "yes, I am prepared to torture and murder women and children to protect my country." So, again do you think that you could do it with your own hands?
It's important to ask yourself these things.

Wigon

[Connaught Ranger]

Don't judge him. He is brave enough to say what alot of people on this forum believe. Hear him out as its very important to understand their position at the most basic level even if you disagree.

Wigon

There are some in the world and no doubt one or two who post on here, who believe the Nazi "Final Solution" was justifiable as well, but that does not make that belief right. :roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[RxOnco]

It still doesn't answer whether you would be willing to do the job of killing women and children yourself. It's one thing to have such beliefs and not care about whether someone does those things to Muslims. But its quite another to say "yes, I am prepared to torture and murder women and children to protect my country." So, again do you think that you could do it with your own hands?
It's important to ask yourself these things.

Wigon

Sorry, I thought I did answer. Hypothetically speaking...if it were my job, I'd be open and willing to do what I felt was necessary. Sure it's easy for me to say. I'm a pharmacist from Texas. That being said, I can only give you my opinion on a theoretical basis. This is how I feel, and I'm sure I'll continue to take heat for it. It all comes down to what I said in a previous post. That being, I don't give a f**k about those people. If killing one over there will save one over here...so be it.

[commanding]

Are swirlies and pink bellies still allowed?

what ya mean? as "torture" techniques? here we called a bearded chin rub on the belly as a "cherry belly", which I assume is the same?
I don't know a swirlie.

[Noons86]

I would slit my own throat before touching a child.

[Edger]

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/paine_dissertations_on_first_prin.html), 1795

[wigon]

Sorry, I thought I did answer. Hypothetically speaking...if it were my job, I'd be open and willing to do what I felt was necessary. Sure it's easy for me to say. I'm a pharmacist from Texas. That being said, I can only give you my opinion on a theoretical basis. This is how I feel, and I'm sure I'll continue to take heat for it. It all comes down to what I said in a previous post. That being, I don't give a f**k about those people. If killing one over there will save one over here...so be it.

Thank you for the clearer answer.
What is interesting is that this exact same rationale is used by Islamic extremists to justify the killing of American civilians. They truly believe that such acts of terrorism will drive us out of the Middle East where they believe we are waging a war against Islam.
Now, as an American, do you think that their strategy of terrorism will cause America to run away scared or do you think it has the opposite effect making us even more determined and more aggressive in killing Muslim extremists?

If the latter, do you not think that killing Muslim women and children would have the same effect on Muslims in general, making them more sympathetic with the extremists or more likely to become extremists themselves?

Wigon

[Hollis]

You should move to North Korea, Iran or China. A democracy is definately the wrong political and social system for you.


Can you please advise this forum of your combat experience? About democracy on the battle field? What intelligence community that you have been apart of? What experience that you have with sociopaths or psychotic murders?

Nice to live in a safe and comfortable crystal palace ignoring life on the streets of humanity trying to deal with some really evil humans.

[RxOnco]

...If the latter, do you not think that killing Muslim women and children would have the same effect on Muslims in general, making them more sympathetic with the extremists or more likely to become extremists themselves?

Wigon

This happens anyway. We obey strict ROE, and the propaganda machine has us killing the innocents still. Extremists are just that...extreme. And anyone who will sypathize with them can then share the same name.

The old game of "we can't stoop to their level" just doesn't work.

I'm not advocating kicking in doors and killing babies at random. This was referring to a specific report detailing "threats" made toward a high value detainee. I simply said it wouldn't bother me if they had to follow through on them. When it comes to getting information which could save the lives of soldiers on the ground (my brother being one of them), or the lives of Americans...I say by whatever means necessary.

In the end, those bastards are going to hate us regardless. We could send them all a dozen roses and chocolates and jihad would still be declared. We can launch a couple hellfires into a "wedding party" and jihad will still be declared...but many of them will be doing it post-mortem.

[Bia]

I'd rather have brutal threats unleashed upon me as opposed to say.... having my head carved off on camera and posted on the WeBz 10 minutes later...

Carry on brave gentlemen.

:P

[wigon]

This happens anyway. We obey strict ROE, and the propaganda machine has us killing the innocents still. Extremists are just that...extreme. And anyone who will sypathize with them can then share the same name.

The old game of "we can't stoop to their level" just doesn't work.

I'm not advocating kicking in doors and killing babies at random. This was referring to a specific report detailing "threats" made toward a high value detainee. I simply said it wouldn't bother me if they had to follow through on them. When it comes to getting information which could save the lives of soldiers on the ground (my brother being one of them), or the lives of Americans...I say by whatever means necessary.

In the end, those bastards are going to hate us regardless. We could send them all a dozen roses and chocolates and jihad would still be declared. We can launch a couple hellfires into a "wedding party" and jihad will still be declared...but many of them will be doing it post-mortem.

So you are saying that killing their Muslim women and children would have no effect on getting Muslims who previously supported us (or didn't care one way or another), to become sympathetic to terrorists or to outright become a terrorist themselves?

Also do you think its possible to have dialog with Islamic extremists?

Wigon

[Hollis]

I'd rather have brutal threats unleashed upon me as opposed to say.... having my head carved off on camera and posted on the WeBz 10 minutes later...

Carry on brave gentlemen.

:P


My thoughts too, but then we have some who believe the tangos should be treated as Royalty and what horrors the tangos do to others is not a issue.

[Kilgor]

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainee's a Form of Torture ?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=a-section

[Hollis]

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainee's a Form of Torture ?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=a-section


Isn't this a OPSEC violation................... ???

Another secret leaked by the media again.

[wildcat]

they should leave the CIA alone, last thing we want is to destroy our human intelligence network, or if they do investigate, keep it behind close door for the sake of national security.

[Elbs]

I don't advocate torture. Far from it. But there's an interesting question... how far do you go to protect the lives of your countrymen if you feel there is an imminent attack, say another 9/11. Would it be acceptable to deprive a tango of sleep? To blast loud music? A mock-execution?

If thousands of lives are on the line and I have on my hands a possible source of intelligence that can SAVE LIVES, you damn right I'm going to threaten him. It's not a game. Somehow threatening a guy's family and slicing a man's head off on television doesn't exactly ring as equally bad to me...

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Intellect and training are the only real tools that an interrogator actually needs no threats no hammers. But an agency devoid of intellect, leadership and direction, water boarding and threats of rape will suffice. But I suppose you can only piss with the c*ck you have.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Intellect and training are only real tools that an interrogator actually needs no threats no hammers. But an agency devoid of intellect, leadership and direction, water boarding and threats of rape will suffice. But I suppose you can only piss with the c*ck you have.

Spot on...

[Eye]

IMHO to accept any kind of torture, you have to feel a better kind of human. Something like ubermensch. It let you to treat jailed person like a thing - a source of information. I don't think it is possible to torture somebody and consider him as human.

[RxOnco]

So you are saying that killing their Muslim women and children would have no effect on getting Muslims who previously supported us (or didn't care one way or another), to become sympathetic to terrorists or to outright become a terrorist themselves?

Also do you think its possible to have dialog with Islamic extremists?

Wigon

During WWII, we weren't concerned that we might lose the support of some of the Germans. Instead we waged massive bombing campaigns on entire cities. We didn't worry what the Japanese would think. Instead we completely leveled two entire cities, killing 200,000+. We were willing to do what needed to be done in order to achieve victory.
Now, again, I'm not advocating the indescriminate killing of women and children. I'm only saying that if we have a HVT who we believe may have information on a future attack either on our soldiers or here at home, do whatever it takes. If that takes killing his family, so be it.

And no, I don't think it's possible to have a dialog with Islamic extremists. They're called extremists for a reason...because they're extreme.

[Connaught Ranger]

During WWII, we weren't concerned that we might lose the support of some of the Germans. Instead we waged massive bombing campaigns on entire cities. We didn't worry what the Japanese would think. Instead we completely leveled two entire cities, killing 200,000+. We were willing to do what needed to be done in order to achieve victory.
Now, again, I'm not advocating the indescriminate killing of women and children. I'm only saying that if we have a HVT who we believe may have information on a future attack either on our soldiers or here at home, do whatever it takes. If that takes killing his family, so be it.

You manage to contradict yourself so nicely.:roll:

And no, I don't think it's possible to have a dialog with Islamic extremists. They're called extremists for a reason...because they're extreme.

You comparison to WWII and the fight against Terrorism is way off line.
In WW2, German & Axis infrastructure, factories, rail-networks etc..etc.. that aided the enemy's war effort were legitimate targets and the unfortunate civilians were collateral damage, the end result of their countries policies.

With regards Japan, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were major centers of enemy war supplies & manufacturing and transport centers, the names were not just picked out of a hat, and targeted just for fun.:roll:

Even today in the targeting of a known member of a terrorist organisation in a place of hiding be it in an Afghanistan village, house or cave, the onus is on the "good" guys to make sure that the civilian collateral damage is kept to an absolute minimum, especially when it concerns a countries civilians whose current elected government has not declared war on the west.

Just because a few people in that country, or any country are actively involved in a campaign against the West, it does not give any country the right to go in and declare total war on that countries residents, now matter how much you would wish it so.:roll:

By doing things your was you will only succeed in driving hundreds if not thousands to the enemy cause, and invite swift retaliation in your own homeland, even today "Fortress America" is not as secure as you might presume it to be.

In fact what you advocate is Terrorism for Terrorism sake.

Connaught Ranger

[brainplay]

Intellect and training are only real tools that an interrogator actually needs no threats no hammers. But an agency devoid of intellect, leadership and direction, water boarding and threats of rape will suffice. But I suppose you can only piss with the c*ck you have.

We have decades of experience refining the technique and dozens of schools with set curriculum for non-violent interrogation. We have no such school or experience with any of these forms of extreme interrogation/torture. Application of the latter is under amateur circumstances and has not (probably never will) be expanded upon. Can't really show any example of a "trained" individuals using these techniques as opposed to grassroots experimentation as involved in these cases. And yet these cases apparently showed results.

Lack of training to show if its truly effective. Lack of intellect for going with a technique that is not truly refined.

Not advocating that we go down that route. Just pointing out that the "it doesn't work" theory is not as solid an argument as some claim.

[RxOnco]

It's not a contradiction at all CR. I'm saying that if there's reason to kill, I feel it's justified.

I don't recall ever saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "picked out of a hat, and targeted just for fun." I was making the point that we managed to kill a couple hundred thousand people, many of them civilians, in order to achieve the military goal set forth. This is something that would NEVER be done in todays PC society.

Kudos on getting in your two :roll: quota by the way.

[commanding]

It's not a contradiction at all CR. I'm saying that if there's reason to kill, I feel it's justified.

I don't recall ever saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "picked out of a hat, and targeted just for fun." I was making the point that we managed to kill a couple hundred thousand people, many of them civilians, in order to achieve the military goal set forth. This is something that would NEVER be done in todays PC society.

Kudos on getting in your two :roll: quota by the way.

First, I am not sure that the USA would never attack a city now with nuclear weapons, in fact I am SURE we would. One of the USAs policies is a purposely blurred statement, of how we would respond to either a biological or chemical attack on the USA...in that we would resond with nuclear weapons on the attacker, to decapitate their leadership.
Second, on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski, Japan in WWII, those cities were selected on purpose for several reasons (my understanding), granted some military depots in those cities, and they had been left untouched by conventional bombing so the exact extent of the destruction of the atomic bomb could be determined. I honestly believe that the US would use nuclear weapons against any enemy who attacked us in certain ways (nuclear, bio, chemical).

BTW....remember the Alamo!

[RxOnco]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in that we'd likely use them if nuclear/bio/chem were used on us. This wasn't the case in Japan though. We did it to grab the upper hand and try and end the war.

I always remember the Alamo.p-)

[commanding]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in that we'd likely use them if nuclear/bio/chem were used on us. This wasn't the case in Japan though. We did it to grab the upper hand and try and end the war.

I always remember the Alamo.p-)

Absolutely! I forget the actual numbers, but they estimate something like one million US lives were saved by not having to invade the mainland japan, and my father in law was one of them...so my wife might not have been here, had they not used the Atomic bomb. So I thank god every day they used em. Bless Curtis LeMay.

[Hollis]

I think most people will agree that physical torture is nothing more than sadistic entertainment for who ever does it and will accomplish nothing.

As for threats..... Again what is the definition or how is it played out? I wonder how many here where ever involved in interrogation or attended classes on it or worked with interrogators.

Yes out smarting the 'perp' is a big part of it, how do you think it is done. It is easy to make a simple blanket all encompassing statement, but how is it implemented?

I am sure most have seen either via TV, movie or a book, the famous good cop/bad cop routine. How do you think it is done. It is a acceptable law enforcement tactic even with the ACLU.

Again, I will restate the very obvious physical torture is nothing more than sadism and does not add to the information base of any interrogation. It is done to humiliate or to break a human, and is not done to obtain any worthwhile information.

To actually understand interrogation techniques one really needs to see the whole operation in action, not just a sliver of it. Kind of like paraphrasing a book. Just saying this or that was done, is almost meaning less when taken out of context.

IMHO this is just more partisan political fault finding, what it actually means or the complete story will probably never be told, so it leaves it to the reader bias to go in what ever direction that they choose.


Also as with every other job, there are new ideas that are tried out or different tactic. Do they work as well as intended? Do they fall within already establish guidelines of conduct? Generally those studies are long and not for the average person's reading pleasure.

[the_13th_redneck]

If we put terrorists into 5 star hotels, we'd get complaints that by making life too comfortable we've put them into meaningless misery and that too constitutes as torture.

[concealedbarrel]

I don't give a f**k about those people. They have one goal and one goal only...to kill as many of us as possible. For that, I could care less what happens to them, or their family. Sure, some have no choice and have been born or married into the life. Well, tough sh!t.
RxOnco, if you had a domestic terrorist who's known to be planning a large scale attack, would you advocate raping and killing of his family ? Even if you and your siblings were part of it ?

I just hope there isn't so many ''people'' like you, atleast not on decision making spots.

[commanding]

I think most people will agree that physical torture is nothing more than sadistic entertainment for who ever does it and will accomplish nothing.

As for threats..... Again what is the definition or how is it played out? I wonder how many here where ever involved in interrogation or attended classes on it or worked with interrogators.


Hollis, you keep changing avatars....archer? On the "torture will accomplish nothing" deal, and the definition deal.....
and I am just asking/discussing, since I think we can calmly as adults...I don't know how you (or I for that matter) define torture. However, I have heard that KSM was "waterboarded" about 183 times, and evidently he gave up a LOT of information on planned terror attacks, individuals involved, locations, tactics, history, etc.
And no, I have never been involved in any kind of enemy interogations or threats or torture, nor any classes on same. So I am speaking from a purely academic background.

[Hollis]

Hollis, you keep changing avatars....archer? On the "torture will accomplish nothing" deal, and the definition deal.....
and I am just asking/discussing, since I think we can calmly as adults...I don't know how you (or I for that matter) define torture. However, I have heard that KSM was "waterboarded" about 183 times, and evidently he gave up a LOT of information on planned terror attacks, individuals involved, locations, tactics, history, etc.
And no, I have never been involved in any kind of enemy interogations or threats or torture, nor any classes on same. So I am speaking from a purely academic background.


You bring up a really damn good and important point, what the hell is "torture". It is thrown around as if there is only one meaning.

I mentioned physical torture, where physical injury is inflicted. One might say any form of deprivation is also physical torture, I would say it depend on the extent of physical damage. Like hunger, a few days is not much of anything, a month can be excessive and physically damaging, same with sleep deprivation. Something being uncomfortable does not define torture, though in the definition of torture comfort is a part of it. I don't think the legal brains of this country have clearly defined what is or what is not torture. I sure hope the politicians don't define it. The rules in Law Enforcement on interrogation techniques have been defined over the years with various Supreme Court decisions and laws.

I think it is the same with the military, the definition of interrogation will be better defined. When does interrogation ends and torture begins? Obviously the extremes are easy to identify. it is the border between the two that is not easy to identify. It is a complex issue and partisan politics have a habit of trivializing the complicated.

[little icebear]

We have decades of experience refining the technique and dozens of schools with set curriculum for non-violent interrogation. We have no such school or experience with any of these forms of extreme interrogation/torture.

That´s not entirely true... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

[California Joe]

what ya mean? as "torture" techniques? here we called a bearded chin rub on the belly as a "cherry belly", which I assume is the same?
I don't know a swirlie.

Just basic hazing techniques used at football camp when I was in high school...:)

Pink Belly: The Seniors hold a victim down on his bunk and take turns hitting him across the abdomen with a Sperry Topsider type boat shoe until the "belly" is "pink". Quite painful, usually not more than a couple of slaps. Definitely leaves a mark.

Swirly: One of the Lineman holds the victim upside down by his feet, dunks his head in the toilet, toilet is then flushed creating a swirl type effect on his hair. Urinating in the bowl first is optional...

However, telling the noobs that you're going to f*ck their mother or sister was frowned upon. Because, lets face it, that's just too heinous to even think about...:roll:

[Hollis]

That´s not entirely true... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

Small note, Wiki is probably best when checking your own recollection of a event. It is not all that reliable as a actual source for facts. Good to read the citations on where information comes from. Claims have been made in the past without inside documentation, mostly based on hearsay and speculation.

During the Cold War, tons of anti-US propaganda was dissimulated in the media, academics and other information sources. One simple truth test, is to find similar information on Stashi or the KGB?

[Laconian]

Torture- many people have many different definitions: pulling fingernails certainly, but what about slapping some dude upside the head to get his attention? Soome say yes, some say no. I lean towards no. I've been in rooms turning guys. I follow a specific set of guidelines that fall short of coercion and certainly short of torture; but that is in an LE setting. And even in LE the idea or situation of the "ticking time bomb" applies different rules. In no way do I support torture; deceit, coercion, some amount of stress inducing physical deprivation - if appropriate (different people have different buttons) should all be on the table. In my experience with interrogation, what is most successful is putting the burden on the subject ("Don't you want to help out your family?") not making your/your side to be the heavy ("Tell me what I want to know or your family is toast."). Again I've not been in a room with a terrorist - a couple of sociopaths & psychopaths sure - but not a religious zealot.

[Power_serj]

What can be done and can't be done in an interrogation is clearly defined in Army Field Manuals (the same manual which the CIA and other 3 letter agencies are now required to abide by). The Army FM pertaining to interrogations is no longer a suggestion, it is the only way to conduct interrogations.

Quote from US Army Interrogation Manual


PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
Acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumanetreatment as a means of or aid to interrogation are expressly prohibited. Acts in violation of these prohibitions may be a violation of US law and regulation and the law of war, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and may be criminal acts punishable under the UCMJ and other US law. Moreover, information obtained by the use of these prohibited means is of questionable value. Ifthere is doubt as to the legality of a proposed form of interrogation, the advice of the SJA must be sought before using the method in question.
Limitations on the use of methods identified herein as expressly prohibited should not be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent or non-coercive subterfuge used by the trained interrogator in the successful interrogation of hesitant or uncooperative sources. Use of torture by US personnel would bring discredit upon the US and its armed forces whileundermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It also could place US and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors.

[Havana]

And no torture and duress is not acceptable in the US because their are Constitutional protections.[/QUOTE]

When did they get Constitutional protections? Their not citizens and are enemy's of the state!

[little icebear]

Small note, Wiki is probably best when checking your own recollection of a event.

I provided this link just because it was conviniently and quickly found in a matter of 2 seconds.

There are plenty of other resources one can consult if one´s interested in learning more about this institution.

[RxOnco]

Just basic hazing techniques used at football camp when I was in high school...:)

Pink Belly: The Seniors hold a victim down on his bunk and take turns hitting him across the abdomen with a Sperry Topsider type boat shoe until the "belly" is "pink". Quite painful, usually not more than a couple of slaps. Definitely leaves a mark.

Swirly: One of the Lineman holds the victim upside down by his feet, dunks his head in the toilet, toilet is then flushed creating a swirl type effect on his hair. Urinating in the bowl first is optional...

However, telling the noobs that you're going to f*ck their mother or sister was frowned upon. Because, lets face it, that's just too heinous to even think about...:roll:

I'm sitting here picturing a couple CIA spooks dangling an AQ piece of sh!t over a toilet saying, "Now tell us where you hid the bomb...or we'll flush again!" (In Jack Bauer voice, of course)

[California Joe]

To clarify my post, at no time were the people involved; ****, covered in oil, or wearing anything from Abercrombie and Fitch.

[Hollis]

another side note, In the US, we the people elect people to represent us. They act as oversight for the complete operation of the US government and agencies. So why public debate or scrutiny when we have elected people to do just that?

First part, what is happening is micromanagement, this is for those who have taken classes in management. Micromanagement is dysfunctional, it harms the organization rather than helps. Micromanagement relies on limited information being used to make decisions that require much more information to understand and by people who are not in a position to understand what all that decision entails. Generally by outsiders.

Politically it is done to gather votes by showing that other side is a bunch of nitwits that no one should have ever voted into office. Limited information is given out in a manner that will help shape a person view to correspond with the intent of the writer/presenter. Basically political propaganda.

What it does for our enemies, it can provide insight into our operation, basically violate OPSEC. To defend the partisan political charges, OPSEC would have to be violate and information released that would aid our enemy. Often this is not done and that will only add to the false claims.

There are intelligence techniques and there are counter intelligence techniques. To develop counter intelligence techniques one needs to know what are the intelligence techniques that will be employed by the other side. So public debate, is helpful to our enemies. Again, we have elected people to represent our interest in Congress so as public debate is not necessary needed and is used for partisan purposes.

If anything it currently demonstrates that the lives of those serving are less important than getting some one elected to office.

Sort of a brief view of a very complex issue. Propaganda is of very high value in a 'Free" society. The power rests in the hands of the people, manipulating the people will maintain control over a country by a small group. Propaganda is a tool of manipulation. When people accept that a Michael Moore movie is a documentary, we are all screwed.

[Hollis]

To clarify my post, at no time were the people involved; ****, covered in oil, or wearing anything from Abercrombie and Fitch.


I didn't think a Wesson oil party was torture.

[RxOnco]

I didn't think a Wesson oil party was torture.

You never met the girls from Phi Mu while I was in school.

[California Joe]

I'm not advocating "actual torture" in any way. I'm with Laconian on that whole LEO background type thing. However, I'm pretty sure I've told my kids at one time or another that I would beat the Hell out of them if they didn't do as they're told. Don't tell Eric Holder.

[CG51]

However, I'm pretty sure I've told my kids at one time or another that I would beat the Hell out of them if they didn't do as they're told.

Don't tell that to our European friends. They will think you are satans spawn.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Threats to kill and rape huh? Sounds like a night out with Mike Tyson. If that's the best the CIA can do, we're in trouble.

But uh...maybe I'm missing something...where in the story does it say anything about threats to kill and/or rape? It talks about the CIA depriving a gentleman of sleep for several days.


Are swirlies and pink bellies still allowed?

No, those are culturally insensitive to Muslims. The Quran says something about believers not defiling themselves with high school shenanigans.

[Connaught Ranger]

First, I am not sure that the USA would never attack a city now with nuclear weapons, in fact I am SURE we would. One of the USAs policies is a purposely blurred statement, of how we would respond to either a biological or chemical attack on the USA...in that we would resond with nuclear weapons on the attacker, to decapitate their leadership.
Second, on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski, Japan in WWII, those cities were selected on purpose for several reasons (my understanding), granted some military depots in those cities, and they had been left untouched by conventional bombing so the exact extent of the destruction of the atomic bomb could be determined. I honestly believe that the US would use nuclear weapons against any enemy who attacked us in certain ways (nuclear, bio, chemical).

BTW....remember the Alamo!

I stand open to correction, but, I believe Nagasaki was not the original target for the second bomb, it was a secondary target.

I believe they were attacked before the use of the big bombs with conventional bombs.

More of Tokyo was destroyed by conventional fire bombing and had far more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Of course the U.S. retains the option for responding with nuclear weapons, the question is would they target a country and its population, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, for the actions of a terrorist group?

Connaught Ranger.

[brainplay]

I provided this link just because it was conviniently and quickly found in a matter of 2 seconds.

There are plenty of other resources one can consult if one´s interested in learning more about this institution.

Little Icebear: Publishing a manual without solid documentation and research happens all of the time. In many cases the research is by a single individual or center. Heck Paladin Press used to have dozens on hand that were pure junk based on single events or "theory" not actual case studies or cross referencing with other sources. Modern history hasn't seen anyone develop anything along those lines since the early 16th century when they had treatise on the subject and collated information from various "torturers".

Now having said that we still come back to the point where it is illegal to administer (and/or research on someone) and we already have proven methods which are legal. If lives are on the line and its time critical, how would you rate any information gathered from an unknown method and an untrained/under-trained individual? Thats like tasking a 1 week academy rookie to interrogate a guy who might have a lead on a walking nuke in the CONUS.

[commanding]

I stand open to correction, but, I believe Nagasaki was not the original target for the second bomb, it was a secondary target.

I believe they were attacked before the use of the big bombs with conventional bombs.

More of Tokyo was destroyed by conventional fire bombing and had far more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Of course the U.S. retains the option for responding with nuclear weapons, the question is would they target a country and its population, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, for the actions of a terrorist group?

Connaught Ranger.
You are correct, the second target was changed, due to cloud cover they could not see the exact target with the bomb sights...so switched to "plan B". I do NOT think both cities were bombed prior to the Atomic bomb, but again I may be in error.
I agree that Tokyo was fire bombed and destroyed much of that city and caused more casualties than H. or N.
as for the question would the US actually use their atomic weapons to respsond to a Bio or chemical or Nuclear attack, yes the US would...as to exactly what we would target, that remains classified I imagine. The term for the exact US policy toward our Atomic weapon response to the above three threats is called "calculated ambiguity".

As to other nations likely to be hit with Chemical, Biological, or Atomic weapons by non-nation groups (terrorists), I would place high on the list Israel, UK, India, Pakistan, South Korea, and Japan.

And comparing the # of casualties....It is estimated that if Tokyo Japan, were attacked by spraying anthrax from the XXX building, 1 KG of anthrax sprayed for 15 minutes with 1% dispersal, would create between 150,000 and 750,000 casualties. I would assume that huge cities in the other above countries would be equally devasted by similar attacks.

[little icebear]

Little Icebear: Publishing a manual without solid documentation and research happens all of the time. In many cases the research is by a single individual or center. Heck Paladin Press used to have dozens on hand that were pure junk based on single events or "theory" not actual case studies or cross referencing with other sources.


The School of the Americas has its own human rights group. Quiet an achievement. :)

If you want to, you can look at their sources and what data the US government has released.
But even if one wanted to discard available evidence, I believe this statement:


Modern history hasn't seen anyone develop anything along those lines since the early 16th century when they had treatise on the subject and collated information from various "torturers".

Is pretty naive. However I agree with the latter part of your posting.



Now having said that we still come back to the point where it is illegal to administer (and/or research on someone) and we already have proven methods which are legal. If lives are on the line and its time critical, how would you rate any information gathered from an unknown method and an untrained/under-trained individual? Thats like tasking a 1 week academy rookie to interrogate a guy who might have a lead on a walking nuke in the CONUS.

Much of the what I have read or seen suggests that the last admin was not even capable of organizing actions, formerly known as torture ;) properly... leaving it to ordinary soldiers to "giving suspects (! one should not forget that many were just that !) a hard time" before the actual interogations and then having people taking over who are working with reverse-engineered SERE tactics, instead of getting someone with actual field-experience in that matter.
Well at least there was still the option of "outsourcing" the job. :)

[Hollis]

Little bear it does not take a class to teach someone to be brutal. Effective interrogation technique is a art. Effective interrogation has nothing to do with torture or brutality. Brutality has been going on to some degree since the beginning of time. To say the US teaches that stuff is more than naive.

Torture and Brutality has nothing to do with gaining information. It is about humiliation, sadism, and some other sick reason. People tortures animals that is obviously not for information.

The US teaching interrogation techniques is more to raise the professionalism of another country interrogation team. That in itself will lead to the end of torture to gain information. Why, because it will be obvious that torture does not work and that professional interrogation techniques do.

[Weasel]

You can call it "interrogation" as long as you want - just to give you the fuzzy warm feeling. But it remains torture.

[Laconian]

You can call it "interrogation" as long as you want - just to give you the fuzzy warm feeling. But it remains torture.

WRONG! An interrogation is not automatically torture. An interrogation is a formal questioning session in which the interrogator asks questions to gain information about matters the subject would deem personal or private. It differs from an interview (in American legal jargon) in that that there is a custodial issue and the subject is not free to leave, is basically in custody.

[little icebear]

To say the US teaches that stuff is more than naive.


I´m pretty much under the impression that it is a well established fact that the US did just that (of course not only that but mainly more "normal" forms of military support/training) at the S.O.T. during the times of the cold war.
I didn´t use the present tense. I just wanted to tell brainplay, that he is wrong in his believe, that there is no actual experience in this matter.

As for the rest of your posting, I fully agree. Interrogations of terrorists and/or terror suspects should be left to professionals like FBI agents.

[Laconian]

I´m pretty much under the impression that it is a well established fact that the US did just that (of course not only that but mainly more "normal" forms of military support/training) at the S.O.T. during the times of the cold war.
I didn´t use the present tense. I just wanted to tell brainplay, that he is wrong in his believe, that there is no actual experience in this matter.

As for the rest of your posting, I fully agree. Interrogations of terrorists and/or terror suspects should be left to professionals like FBI agents.

So there are no professionals in the CIA, DIA, NSA or any other intelligence agency or military intelligence organization? Just the "professionals" in the FBI? I wasn't aware they were issuing capes at Quantico now.

[JJC]

So there are no professionals in the CIA, DIA, NSA or any other intelligence agency or military intelligence organization? Just the "professionals" in the FBI? I wasn't aware they were issuing capes at Quantico now.
He read in papers how FBI has to mirandize suspects with access to lawyers and that Obama's Justice Department is more fond of this practice with terror suspects, so now the FBI has to be"more professional" than those cruel CIA or military intel agencies who use water boarding and made up threats that intimidate and increase heart rates of suspects to cruel levels.

[little icebear]

Nope, I just have the hots for Agent Scully.

[JKD]

....water boarding and made up threats that intimidate and increase heart rates of suspects to cruel levels.

Or lowers heart rates

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html

[wigon]

He read in papers how FBI has to mirandize suspects with access to lawyers and that Obama's Justice Department is more fond of this practice with terror suspects, so now the FBI has to be"more professional" than those cruel CIA or military intel agencies who use water boarding and made up threats that intimidate and increase heart rates of suspects to cruel levels.


Actually looooong before Obama became President, the FBI was outspoken against the CIA's usage of torture techniques...err sorry, enhanced interrogation techniques. The FBI simply had interrogators who used other means to get the information and were doing quite well before they pulled out of interrogations due to CIA misconduct. The records are fairly clear about their protests against torture tactics.

Wigon

[CG51]

..............

[JJC]

Actually looooong before Obama became President, the FBI was outspoken against the CIA's usage of torture techniques...err sorry, enhanced interrogation techniques. The FBI simply had interrogators who used other means to get the information and were doing quite well before they pulled out of interrogations due to CIA misconduct. The records are fairly clear about their protests against torture tactics. Wigon

FBI v. CIA power struggle and rivalry is nothing new. There is no quantifiable evidence (at least to the public) that FBI does things in a much more productive way over CIA when it comes to interrogating hardened terror suspects. I'm highly skeptical that FBI would have made KSM talk when CIA couldn't.

[wigon]

Small note, Wiki is probably best when checking your own recollection of a event. It is not all that reliable as a actual source for facts. Good to read the citations on where information comes from. Claims have been made in the past without inside documentation, mostly based on hearsay and speculation.

During the Cold War, tons of anti-US propaganda was dissimulated in the media, academics and other information sources. One simple truth test, is to find similar information on Stashi or the KGB?


Actually whoever posted that Wiki stuff on the torture manuals was just lazy. The sources can be found here at the SOA Watch site:
http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=98

During the Cold War we did indeed encourage torture and brutal repression of anyone threatening pro-American regimes (or against left-wing governments) in Latin America. This is a well known fact that the DoD and State Department admitted to. Hell, even President Clinton made an apology in Guatamala that had almost zero coverage in the American media. The fact of the matter is that we did some evil evil things during the Cold War. However most Americans knew nothing about it and the media talked very little about it. There was a reason why we cut off funding to El-Salvador... The turning point was when their military death squads (armed and trained by our boys in the Green Berets) killed several American nuns involed in the Catholic Liberation Theology movement.

The father of a good friend of mine was a Special Forces advisor in El-Salvador (he had some captured guerilla flags, photographs, a captured guerilla AK-47, etc...). He told me that he was quite proud of his role killing communists and really didn't give a rats ass if they were just leftist labor leaders or Catholic human rights activists. To him he was fighting the spread of communism and he said he slept well. The attitudes of some here kinda remind me of that retired SF officer.

In that conflict we were ultimately proven wrong. The guerillas launched a massive attack on San Salvador forcing the government to the peace table. Peace was achieved. In Guatamala they are now just coming to terms with massive genocide of indigenous peoples and anyone remotely left-wing. Similar stories in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, etc... Hell we are STILL waging a quiet cover war that is expanding now in Colombia. I won't even get into Africa.

Trying the same tactics in the Middle East is a WHOLE different ball of wax. Muslims don't forget and forgive. The attrocities we commit in the Middle East will resonate for centuries. Ultimately I believe that if such attitudes are accepted by society, we will begin to turn inward and use such tactics against our own and against any nation that pisses us off.
I personally don't want America to turn into the next Nazi regime rationalizing torture and genocide in the name of freedom, democracy, national security, and civilization.

Wigon

[LineDoggie]

Captured Guerilla AK47 in the USA?

Somehow, that sounds hinky

[wigon]

Captured Guerilla AK47 in the USA?

Somehow, that sounds hinky


Nope...it was demilitarized so he could bring it back. Big metal slug welded in the barrel.

Wigon

[brainplay]

The School of the Americas has its own human rights group. Quiet an achievement. :)

If you want to, you can look at their sources and what data the US government has released.
But even if one wanted to discard available evidence, I believe this statement:

Non sequitur. Thats not R&D. Thats someone having their version of a fun in the field. Wigon's post confirms that. He really needs to read what he's posting. Chpt 22 "CI INTERROGATION OF SUSPECTS" and Chpt 23 "EXTRACTING CI INFORMATION" are straight from the Army manual on interrogation. No mention of torture or any sort of extreme interrogation methods in there.


Is pretty naive. However I agree with the latter part of your posting. Naive? Torquemada was the last person to write a detailed treatise on the use of extreme interrogation. He had strict rules on when and how to use it from years of experience.


Much of the what I have read or seen suggests that the last admin was not even capable of organizing actions, formerly known as torture ;) properly... leaving it to ordinary soldiers to "giving suspects (! one should not forget that many were just that !) a hard time" before the actual interogations and then having people taking over who are working with reverse-engineered SERE tactics, instead of getting someone with actual field-experience in that matter.
Well at least there was still the option of "outsourcing" the job. :)

Wut? How do you get field experience on when there isn't anyone with experience?

[Hollis]

I´m pretty much under the impression that it is a well established fact that the US did just that (of course not only that but mainly more "normal" forms of military support/training) at the S.O.T. during the times of the cold war.
I didn´t use the present tense. I just wanted to tell brainplay, that he is wrong in his believe, that there is no actual experience in this matter.

As for the rest of your posting, I fully agree. Interrogations of terrorists and/or terror suspects should be left to professionals like FBI agents.


It was the propaganda at the time, that the US sponsored all sorts of evil.

Military and FBI have different training and defined roles. Military intelligences is well suited for what it does. It ranges from interrogations from violations of the UCMJ to interrogations of a an enemy.

[Hollis]

Nope...it was demilitarized so he could bring it back. Big metal slug welded in the barrel.

Wigon


Yeah like in 1995 a survey conducted among Americans Males, was that 13 Million served in Viet-Nam, mostly in Seals, SF, SOG etc. None were cooks, grunts, etc.

(actually less than 3 Million Americans served)


Wigon, tell you what, PM me his name and I will check to see if he is a real deal SF. At this point, my gut feeling is that he is not the story sounds like bull. I was in El Salvador in the late 60's. Also we have some older SF members on this forum.

[Hollis]

How a Detainee Became An Asset
Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding
By Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 29, 2009

After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials."

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

"What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."

Mohammed, in statements to the International Committee of the Red Cross, said some of the information he provided was untrue.

"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said.

Critics say waterboarding and other harsh methods are unacceptable regardless of their results, and those with detailed knowledge of the CIA's program say the existing assessments offer no scientific basis to draw conclusions about effectiveness.

"Democratic societies don't use torture under any circumstances. It is illegal and immoral," said Tom Parker, policy director for counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International. "This is a fool's argument in any event. There is no way to prove or disprove the counterfactual."

John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency's detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."

"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview. "But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."

After his capture, Mohammed first told his captors what he calculated they already knew.

"KSM almost immediately following his capture in March 2003 elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow airport," according to a document released by the CIA on Monday that summarizes the intelligence provided by Mohammed. The agency thinks he assumed that Ramzi Binalshibh, a Sept. 11 conspirator captured in September 2002, had already divulged the plan.

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.

"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Mohammed provided the CIA with an autobiographical statement, describing a rebellious childhood, his decision to join the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager, and his time in the United States as a student at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, from where he graduated in 1986 with a degree in mechanical engineering.

"KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States -- which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills -- almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist," according to the intelligence summary. "He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country."

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal "supermax" prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific.

Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who "at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999," according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

"Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary.

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his "overriding priority" was to strike the United States, but that he "realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures." Most of the plots, as a result, were "opportunistic and limited," according to the summary.

One former agency official recalled that Mohammed was once asked to write a summary of his knowledge about al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist group had explored buying either an intact nuclear weapon or key components such as enriched uranium, although there is no evidence of significant progress on that front.

"He wrote us an essay" on al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions, the official said. "Not all of it was accurate, but it was quite extensive."

Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.

Mohammed was moved to the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2006, and his loquaciousness is now largely confined to occasional appearances before a military commission. Back in his 86-square-foot cell at the secret Camp 7 at Guantanamo, he spends most of his waking hours in prayer, according to a source familiar with his confinement who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But Mohammed has not abandoned his intellectual pursuits. He requested a Bible for study in his cell, according to the source, in order to better understand his enemy.

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/images/attach/pdf.gif Khalid_Shayhk_Muhammad.pdf (http://shadowspear.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=8524&d=1251553741) (344.3 KB, 0 views)

[commanding]

How a Detainee Became An Asset
Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding
By Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 29, 2009


http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/images/attach/pdf.gif Khalid_Shayhk_Muhammad.pdf (http://shadowspear.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=8524&d=1251553741) (344.3 KB, 0 views)

Hollis, thank you SO MUCH for posting this...as it is the best info I have seen on the KSM interrogation and his compliance. I am a bit surprised, that he "lectures" and gives aid on one hand, and then requests a Bible to study his enemy. I have read, that many of the detainees in GITMO have told the commander, that they will kill them or any US soldier, given the slightest chance. So they are still "fighting". I think the article shows how well sleep deprivation and waterboarding worked. I agree with Cheney who said current admin folks should be debriefing the CIA agents, not trying to prosecute them.

[JKD]

I think the article shows how well sleep deprivation and waterboarding worked.

The article points out that when he was being tortured he was giving out lots of false information and telling his torturers what he thought they would want to hear in order to get it to stop. And:


The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result.

But whether or not torture is an effective means of gathering intelligence I think is overridden by it being hypocritical, against this nation's values, and just flat out fvcking wrong.

[Hollis]

The article points out that when he was being tortured he was giving out lots of false information and telling his torturers what he thought they would want to hear in order to get it to stop. And:



But whether or not torture is an effective means of gathering intelligence I think is overridden by it being hypocritical, against this nation's values, and just flat out fvcking wrong.


Why are you adding the word "torture", Try reading the article next time. Unless you are overly consumed by your own opinion to be able to read for content.

""During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said."

[JKD]

Why are you adding the word "torture",
Because I think waterboarding is torture and I'm far from alone on that.


Try reading the article next time.
I did read it it. And then went back and re-read a few parts.


Unless you are overly consumed by your own opinion to be able to read for content.
I have my opinions as does everyone, but I don't think they've over powered my reading comprehension just yet.


""During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said."
I referenced this part in the first paragraph of my previous post.

[little icebear]

Torquemada was the last person to write a detailed treatise on the use of extreme interrogation. He had strict rules on when and how to use it from years of experience.


Wrong. Hint: Roger Trinquier



Wut? How do you get field experience on when there isn't anyone with experience?

Again. Wrong.

Please, if you are truely interested in this topic, do research. Even with google fu and without access to a university´s library you can find more than enough infos, including declassified documents, pentagon statements and at least 2 handbooks used at the SOA...

I´m not going to do your homework for you - if you don´t want to learn more about this subject - so be it.


It was the propaganda at the time, that the US sponsored all sorts of evil.

:roll:

[brainplay]

Wrong. Hint: Roger Trinquier



[quote]Again. Wrong.

Please, if you are truely interested in this topic, do research. Even with google fu and without access to a university´s library you can find more than enough infos, including declassified documents, pentagon statements and at least 2 handbooks used at the SOA...

I´m not going to do your homework for you - if you don´t want to learn more about this subject - so be it.


It seems you're relying heavily on google in this case. Yes, I got interest on this subject long before this scandal came out. Did some research work on this during a social studies project. Torquemada was the only person who collated his umm "work" from himself and others. He revised the entire subject, laid down ground rules, and put limits in place. His rules were used as a basis till the 16th century. Unlike Trinquier, Mengele (although this guy ranks high), Ishii, he didn't work alone.


I've already pointed out your errors. If you're going to refute it then you better be prepared to put out some homework. SOA was very well known for "punishing" people in retaliation or as examples. Not the same as extracting valuable info. And that is where use of the word gets murky.

[little icebear]

It seems you're relying heavily on google in this case.

Posting links via google to support your arguments is done quicker and with less efford, mate.
This is just a conversation, I´m not prepared to lay down a complete scientific documentation.

I didn´t really wanted to get into the issue at all, but as I read how you stated that there´s no kind of "torture manual" since Torquemeda and that there are no people who have been trained to torture, I wanted to bring to your attention that you´re actually missing a lot.

To my knowledge, both statements are false.



Torquemada was the only person who collated his umm "work" from himself and others. He revised the entire subject, laid down ground rules, and put limits in place. His rules were used as a basis till the 16th century. Unlike Trinquier, Mengele (although this guy ranks high), Ishii, he didn't work alone.


I don´t really get what you´re saying here... and what Mengele and Ishii have to do with this? Completely unrelated.



I've already pointed out your errors.

Must have missed that.


If you're going to refute it then you better be prepared to put out some homework. SOA was very well known for "punishing" people in retaliation or as examples. Not the same as extracting valuable info. And that is where use of the word gets murky.


Nope...

30 seconds google-fu:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/055.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB27/02-01.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/

Edit: second link is already a revised, early eighties edition, there are at least one, maybe two older ones, but this one is (despite those funny disclaimers) mean enough.
Following the citations at wiki-articles is another good idea to dig deeper.

[brainplay]

I didn´t really wanted to get into the issue at all, but as I read how you stated that there´s no kind of "torture manual"

Well thats the problem. Original point was that most "interrogation" manuals using torture as a medium are done by individuals who made it up as they went along.

Compare that to modern non-violent methods used today have years of refinement and can compare notes with other areas and even other countries to refine them even further. We have schools on interrogation which are very detailed.

My arguement was that "torture doesn't work" theories are because we don't have anyone who really knows how to apply it in the same capacity our current legal means.

You posted fluff. If you really didn't want to get into it why did you keep posting? Bail dude. Just bail.


p.s.- source taking info from Project X should have sent up red flags for you.

[Weasel]

Hollis, thank you SO MUCH for posting this...as it is the best info I have seen on the KSM interrogation and his compliance. I am a bit surprised, that he "lectures" and gives aid on one hand, and then requests a Bible to study his enemy. I have read, that many of the detainees in GITMO have told the commander, that they will kill them or any US soldier, given the slightest chance. So they are still "fighting". I think the article shows how well sleep deprivation and waterboarding worked. I agree with Cheney who said current admin folks should be debriefing the CIA agents, not trying to prosecute them.

roflroflrofl

Kidnap me, tear me away from my familie, treat me like an anmimal, lock me away for years without accusation, don´t grant me an advocat............and I would swear to take my revenge aswell.

[Hollis]

roflroflrofl

Kidnap me, tear me away from my familie, treat me like an anmimal, lock me away for years without accusation, don´t grant me an advocat............and I would swear to take my revenge aswell.


You forgot you already swore to murder all of us before and probably have murdered people, maybe even decapitated a few. BTW, your not a criminal nor a soldier, your a effin terrorist. So we should give you cookies and milk?

[Weasel]

You forgot you already swore to murder all of us before and probably have murdered people, maybe even decapitated a few. BTW, your not a criminal nor a soldier, your a effin terrorist. So we should give you cookies and milk?

They are innocents until proven guilty. So a fair trial would be a good start.

[Hollis]

They are innocents until proven guilty. So a fair trial would be a good start.


Maybe take some law before bloviating.

[JKD]

You forgot you already swore to murder all of us before and probably have murdered people, maybe even decapitated a few. BTW, your not a criminal nor a soldier, your a effin terrorist. So we should give you cookies and milk?

Because we're the United States of America and we treat people humanely, even those who wouldn't at all return the favor if given the chance. It's just one of the many wonderful things that goes into making us us and not them.

At least that's my (possibly pie in the sky) opinion. I'd like to think we're not a nation that throws it's values out the window at the first sign of trouble or as soon as they're inconvienient.

It's possible some of those guys aren't terrorists anyway.


Ex-Bush Official: Many at Guantanamo Bay Are Innocent

Former chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell says some have been there six or seven years and are innocent

AP
Thursday, March 19, 2009


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.

"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to determine "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation."
continues:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/

[LineDoggie]

Always love how the Left makes these guys out to be altar boys in need of protection, who were merely on their way to the local animal rescue facility to pet puppies. These same apologists would be minus their head if the altar boys ever got the chance.

[little icebear]

Original point was that most "interrogation" manuals using torture as a medium are done by individuals who made it up as they went along.


That´s not a point that´s a claim. You said "there´s been no torture handbook since the Inquisition" - I brought to your attention that this is false.
People have been trained to use torture as a means of interrogation. They don´t just "act" as they go along.

There is no gap in the history of torture. The probably most important resource for the CIA "Kubark" manual regarding cohesive interrogation was the experience of the French in Algeria.

[little icebear]

Always love how the Left makes these guys out to be altar boys in need of protection, who were merely on their way to the local animal rescue facility to pet puppies. These same apologists would be minus their head if the altar boys ever got the chance.

How many of them were in fact caught red-handed?

[Hollis]

Because we're the United States of America and we treat people humanely, even those who wouldn't at all return the favor if given the chance. It's just one of the many wonderful things that goes into making us us and not them.

At least that's my (possibly pie in the sky) opinion. I'd like to think we're not a nation that throws it's values out the window at the first sign of trouble or as soon as they're inconvienient.



In a ideal world that would happen all the time.

General to Marines, "Marines we will be hitting the beaches of Iwo Jima tomorrow. The Japanese are defending that Island. Remember regardless of what they do, we will treat them humanly. That means we can not shoot them, blow them to bits, roast them etc. The Navy will soften the beaches with gifts from the US, our cooks will offer them sweats and meals, hot Saki will be served."

Then again in the real war, we treated Japanese prisoners very well, American who where captured where, tortured, murdered, and experimented on.

Those people, where in a combat zone, they were not caught breaking US law in the US. They were not uniformed soldiers and afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention, they where terrorists or associtiang with terrorists. Under the Geneva Convention they could have been just shot on sight, like spies and saboteurs. They were not.

I would suggest that you get out a little more. Visit some combat zone, participate in the battle and see how "pie in the ski" dreams actually work out. Nick Berg thought he could be nice and considerate to the tangos too. He even took up Islam as a belief or was moving that way.

If we played rough with those guys, it was because they played very very rough and would have none of your humane way of doing things. They left us with no other options. Like a perp on the street, go peacefull with the officer, no problems. If the perp threatens to kill or is violent the police act accordingly, which would not be called humane at times. That is the tools that we have unless you think more soldiers and police should be killed. I don't see you willing to die or loose body parts, by offering to go out and capture tangos and holding them within your view of humane treatment. I think we were as humane a possible under the situation.

BTW a good movie, Straw Dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZgU3ooqQzM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshadowspear.com%2Fvb%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D318323&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpziJTlv7Cw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshadowspear.com%2Fvb%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D21582&feature=player_embedded

Not much other options, except for innocent people being killed or injured.

[Weasel]

How many of them were in fact caught red-handed?

Not too many, I guess. Otherwise they would have been conviced and punished already.

[Hollis]

Not too many, I guess. Otherwise they would have been conviced and punished already.


What jurisdiction would they be prosecuted in?

Are POWs sentenced in Court when they are held prisoners?

Again, take some Law Classes.

[LineDoggie]

Ahh, the Guess, always the Light of Absolute Truth......:roll:

[little icebear]

In a ideal world that would happen all the time.

General to Marines, "Marines we will be hitting the beaches of Iwo Jima tomorrow. The Japanese are defending that Island. Remember regardless of what they do, we will treat them humanly. That means we can not shoot them, blow them to bits, roast them etc. The Navy will soften the beaches with gifts from the US, our cooks will offer them sweats and meals, hot Saki will be served."

Come on, HOLLiS... I know that you can do better. This part of your posting is childish nonsense and you know it.




Those people, where in a combat zone, they were not caught breaking US law in the US. They were not uniformed soldiers and afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention, they where terrorists or associtiang with terrorists. Under the Geneva Convention they could have been just shot on sight, like spies and saboteurs. They were not.


And sometimes these people were ordinary folks who got kidnapped, tortured - pardon me: they were given a "rough time" :roll:, because someone suggested that they could be associated to AQ...

You folks constantly act as if all of them were caught with a smoking gun in their hands and that there´s no doubt that they had it comming.
If someone ended up at Bagram, Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, there must be a reason for it, right? Because there´s no way that an American servicemen (read: hero) could be wrong. :roll:

The opposite is true.

[JKD]

In a ideal world that would happen all the time.

General to Marines, "Marines we will be hitting the beaches of Iwo Jima tomorrow. The Japanese are defending that Island. Remember regardless of what they do, we will treat them humanly. That means we can not shoot them, blow them to bits, roast them etc. The Navy will soften the beaches with gifts from the US, our cooks will offer them sweats and meals, hot Saki will be served."

Then again in the real war, we treated Japanese prisoners very well, American who where captured where, tortured, murdered, and experimented on.

Those people, where in a combat zone, they were not caught breaking US law in the US. They were not uniformed soldiers and afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention, they where terrorists or associtiang with terrorists. Under the Geneva Convention they could have been just shot on sight, like spies and saboteurs. They were not.

I would suggest that you get out a little more. Visit some combat zone, participate in the battle and see how "pie in the ski" dreams actually work out. Nick Berg thought he could be nice and considerate to the tangos too. He even took up Islam as a belief or was moving that way.

If we played rough with those guys, it was because they played very very rough and would have none of your humane way of doing things. They left us with no other options. Like a perp on the street, go peacefull with the officer, no problems. If the perp threatens to kill or is violent the police act accordingly, which would not be called humane at times. That is the tools that we have unless you think more soldiers and police should be killed. I don't see you willing to die or loose body parts, by offering to go out and capture tangos and holding them within your view of humane treatment. I think we were as humane a possible under the situation.

BTW a good movie, Straw Dogs.


I’m not suggesting that any American or ally should put themselves in any unwarranted risk to kill, capture, or guard these guys. If it takes restraining them like Hannibal Lecter to safely handle them then fine. But that’s not the sort of thing I’m talking about here.

[Hollis]

Come on, HOLLiS... I know that you can do better. This part of your posting is childish nonsense and you know it.




And sometimes these people were ordinary folks who got kidnapped, tortured - pardon me: they were given a "rough time" :roll:, because someone suggested that they could be associated to AQ...

You folks constantly act as if all of them were caught with a smoking gun in their hands and that there´s no doubt that they had it comming.
If someone ended up at Bagram, Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, there must be a reason for it, right? Because there´s no way that an American servicemen (read: hero) could be wrong. :roll:

The opposite is true.


1st of all keep the insults out, yes it was meant as sarcasm.

2nd. Those who were detained were done so for a reason. Most of us, and I do mean you, do know know why. There is a lot of speculation some based on a heavy anti-US bias.

3rd. you are doing the opposite of what you are accusing others of doing. One might say, you are saying all the tangos where innocent.

4th I guess you missed the articles where some who were released when back to commit acts of terrorism.

5th, probably any "innocent" person has already been released once it was verified they were not tangos.

6th, do you realize the verification process started as soon as they where detained? That is normal even in criminal cases in the US. A person maybe detained. Also keep in mind criminal code is not the same as the military or in another jurisdiction or in war. I am all for the release of any innocent detainee. BTW, you and I we never see all the documents on this. So let your bias run wild.

7th, I don't think you understand US legal process. If you follow the legal discussion on this issue, it is really pretty much new grounds in that several new elements have been added that did not exist in the past. Even the best legal mind in the US are not 100% on this. If you notice, President Obama, a Harvard Law Graduate, has NOT acted on this issue either. One could say he reversed his election promise on this issue too. I think he now understand better the complexity of this issue.

So simplify away Oh legal scholar. Maybe you can pen your opinion and send it to Chief Justice Scalia for his review and clarify how the Supreme Court ought to have dealt with situation.

[Hollis]

I’m not suggesting that any American or ally should put themselves in any unwarranted risk to kill, capture, or guard these guys. If it takes restraining them like Hannibal Lecter to safely handle them then fine. But that’s not the sort of thing I’m talking about here.


That is a part of it. The next step is after containment where do we go, what do we want, and finally what do we do with the detainees after it is determined they are not tangos or if they were tangos and no further information is needed?

President Bush sought a more humane method, as I mentioned in the post above it created new legal grounds that have not been covered before. In the past, such as after WWII, Werwolves (nazi terrorists) when capture were lined up against a wall and shot. That would have simplified all this mess in some ways. Like most people, I believe we need to do better in many ways. I do not support barbarity or torture. The problems that we get into here is not the extreme, but the borderline methods. At what point is uncomfortable is no longer uncomfortable by torture or brutality.

I am making not claims to know where that point is, but waiting for our best legal minds to come up with that solution. I think many off us, are in agreement on basics, it is the application that we are having problems with.

Also each detainee in Gitmo is unique, how unique that is for those interrogators there to know. How innocent is innocent, how guilty is guilty? If it was not for OPSEC and National Security, we would know more, at least to have a better informed opinion.

[little icebear]

5th, probably any "innocent" person has already been released once it was verified they were not tangos.

6th, do you realize the verification process started as soon as they where detained? That is normal even in criminal cases in the US.

Except that criminal suspects apprehended by the Police do have rights and are usually not subjected to (what libtards like myself would call) torture like those poor mofos who ended up in Bagram or elsewhere...

Given the opaque nature of how suspects are taken into custody in warzones, it is pretty safe to assume that you´re far more likely to get the wrong guy every now and then. That´s another reason why it is probably a good idea to treat them humanly.
Could be a poor mofo who happened to be at the wrong spot at the wrong time with the wrong folks.

Like that one:

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/DartmouthTorture/Dilawar.jpg

If he had been treated the way you would treat a suspect in a criminal case in the US, he´d still be alive... and he´s certainly not alone with his fate.

[Hollis]

Except that criminal suspects apprehended by the Police do have rights and are usually not subjected to (what libtards like myself would call) torture like those poor mofos who ended up in Bagram or elsewhere...

Given the opaque nature of how suspects are taken into custody in warzones, it is pretty safe to assume that you´re far more likely to get the wrong guy every now and then. That´s another reason why it is probably a good idea to treat them humanly.
Could be a poor mofo who happened to be at the wrong spot at the wrong time with the wrong folks.

Like that one:

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/DartmouthTorture/Dilawar.jpg

If he had been treated the way you would treat a suspect in a criminal case in the US, he´d still be alive... and he´s certainly not alone with his fate.


Nice to know you have a crystal ball and see into alternate futures. BTW can you get me next Friday's lotto numbers.

BTW, what war zone have you been in?

[little icebear]

BTW, what war zone have you been in?

Thankfully none. Hope I never have to.

Am I only allowed to form an opinion about how suspects (!) should be treated afters serving at least 5 years as an "interrogation" specialist for some military intelligence service, or why is it, you´re asking HOLLiS?


Nice to know you have a crystal ball and see into alternate futures.

Why would I need one? Despite of a lot of american flicks with "bad" cops, I somehow doubt that prisoners are regularly abused by American LEOs.
So, yeah - I´m pretty sure one does not need a crystal ball to predict that he would have been okay.

[Weasel]

Ahh, the Guess, always the Light of Absolute Truth......:roll:

Please share you detailed figures with us.

[Hollis]

Thankfully none. Hope I never have to.

Am I only allowed to form an opinion about how suspects (!) should be treated afters serving at least 5 years as an "interrogation" specialist for some military intelligence service, or why is it, you´re asking HOLLiS?


Have you ever heard the expression, "Informed opinion"?

Do you know what bias/prejudice/propaganda is? Part of a informed opinion is knowing where one's limitations are. To make absolute statements based on ignorance does not equal a informed opinion, but a bias/prejudice/propaganda one.

People mention assumption of innocence for the detainees, but what about assumption of innocence for the interrogator or the US? Does it not go in both direction or is it your bias that the US is always wrong or always commits wrongful acts as a given.

[Weasel]

What jurisdiction would they be prosecuted in?

That´s the question the US government should have asked itself before acting.


Again, take some Law Classes.

No thanks. My basic understanding of a legal system is enough.

[little icebear]

Have you ever heard the expression, "Informed opinion"?

Do you know what bias/prejudice/propaganda is? Part of a informed opinion is knowing where one's limitations are.

The primary resource for me and many other people are of course various forms of news-media.
And now I assume that you will probably tell me how the media is all-around encompassed by liberal bias and rampant anti-americanism... :roll:



People mention assumption of innocence for the detainees, but what about assumption of innocence for the interrogator or the US? Does it not go in both direction or is it your bias that the US is always wrong or always commits wrongful acts as a given.

HOLLiS, I have yet to read any serious article which states that 99% percent of Gitmo inmates are innocent angels and how all American servicemen are sadistic henchmen of the neocon world domination plot.
My stance torwards the USA in general and US soldiers is predominatly positive, even if you assume that the opposite is the case.

Critical thinking does not equal a defeatist attitude torwards terrorism.

[3rdMillhouse]

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Exactly, intelligency gathering service has never been and will never a clean one, a virtuous one, a honorable one. That sort of job is dirty and unforgiving, and if you, as citizen, wish to sleep peacefully in the comfort and safety of your house, then you'd better look the other way and get the fvck off their backs.

[Hollis]

That´s the question the US government should have asked itself before acting.



No thanks. My basic understanding of a legal system is enough.


I am asking you, the US already knows that question. The detainees are already and have been under a jurisdiction.

To your second comment, see my above comment.

[Hollis]

The primary resource for me and many other people are of course various forms of news-media.
And now I assume that you will probably tell me how the media is all-around encompassed by liberal bias and rampant anti-americanism... :roll:



HOLLiS, I have yet to read any serious article which states that 99% percent of Gitmo inmates are innocent angels and how all American servicemen are sadistic henchmen of the neocon world domination plot.
My stance torwards the USA in general and US soldiers is predominatly positive, even if you assume that the opposite is the case.

Critical thinking does not equal a defeatist attitude torwards terrorism.


In bold, seems like some kind of straw man defense. Let's really try to stay away from the usual flame war nonsense, like those extremes. This is not a Conservative, Liberal, neocon, etc issue.

Interesting that you bring up critical thinking.

Why did the US detain these people?

What benefit can the US get from detaining these people when housing them is very expensive and dangerous.

On Process:

People are collected who are believed to be tangos. How does one go about sorting them out?

What benefit is the in keeping a innocent person locked up?

Also have you notice the partisan political attacks about Gitmo has pretty much ended in the US media with the new Administration taking control? As I mentioned earlier some have stated that President Obama has reversed his position on Gitmo? Then WHY?

Have you ever read much on how the guards are treated by some of the detainees at Gitmo?

Have you notice, no one wants to take over responsibility for the detainees, yet will attack the US on having them. If we free them all, no body wants them. WHY?

For any critical thinker, I would think there are lots and lots of question on the inconsistency on the articles about Gitmo and even some hypocrisy by some of the critics on Gitmo.

Also, look at the legal system in the US, seems to have nor pursued the issue, such as the ACLU and other protection groups, why?

Making a claim is one thing, backing it up in a court of law is another.

Why is the Supreme Court mute on this topic to allow the current situation to continue if it is so wrong and tainted?

And probably the biggest point to ask WHY, why did President Obama not follow through with his campaign promise to close Gitmo asap.


Seems like we all have gotten off topic from the original post of threats.

[Hollis]

Some more to read about this issue:


Drop the Investigation of CIA Interrogators
The legal and policy considerations argue against an investigation, let alone a prosecution.

By Andrew C. McCarthy


‘We’re going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever that takes us.” So decreed Attorney General Eric Holder in April when asked whether government officials would face prosecution over coercive interrogation tactics used against terrorist detainees. After all, he elaborated, “no one is above the law.”

Tell that to the voters in Philadelphia who were threatened by nightstick-wielding Obama supporters from the New Black Panther Party. The Panthers got a pass even after they contemptuously ignored court process and even after the government already had prevailed in the case because of their default.

For the Obama/Holder Justice Department, other considerations outweighed following the evidence wherever it led. The Panthers who turned out to be above the law include Jerry Jackson, a credentialed Democratic-party poll-watcher who brays on MySpace about “Killing Crakkkas.” Thanks to Holder’s decision, Jackson is right back in business, having obtained new poll-watcher credentials just days after DOJ dismissed the case.

The CIA interrogators are having a rougher time with prosecutors than did the Black Panthers. They are retaining counsel and preparing for a lengthy investigation that likely will prove personally and professionally ruinous. The Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend that Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to probe whether the agency and its officers committed criminal misconduct.

The interrogators — whose use of harsh tactics resulted in the capture of leading jihadists, the disruption of mass-murder plots, and the saving of American lives — are in a different posture from that of Binyam Mohammed. Mohammed was a leading jihadist who had been plotting some of those disrupted mass-murder attacks that were to take place in American cities. He was slated for prosecution by military commission. But it turned out that he was above the law, too.

Mohammed had been subjected to extraordinary rendition. Begun during the Clinton administration (in which Holder served as deputy attorney general), rendition involves Western intelligence agencies’ handing captured terrorists over to Third World countries that do not follow our punctilious interrogation practices, meaning that we look the other way while they do far nastier things than what Holder wants to investigate the CIA for doing.

In Mohammed’s case, following the evidence wherever it took us would have involved a look-see into this seamy practice. It would, moreover, have exposed the collusion of British (and possibly American) intelligence agents in Mohammed’s transfer to Morocco, where he says he was tortured. So the Obama administration decided that prosecutorial discretion is the better part of valor: The terrorist was quietly extradited to Britain, where he is living free and clear. In fact, he’ll be speaking at a fundraiser in London later this month — if you act quickly, there are still a limited number of women-only balcony seats available.

The CIA interrogators will need some fundraisers, too. By the time Justice is through with them, they will be above their eyeballs in legal fees and lost employment opportunities, even if they are not ultimately charged. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times notes that several officers have put off retirement plans. They are staying in the agency “so that they can maintain their access to classified files and be in a better position to defend against a Justice investigation.” At least they’ll have a reason for being there. Their co-workers won’t. The Obama administration’s message to the intelligence community is crystal clear: Today’s actions to protect the United States may very well yield tomorrow’s indictments.

Holder is big on lecturing Americans about their purported “cowardice” when it comes to matters of race (the official obsession of the first “post-racial” presidency), but when it comes to doing the job he’s actually been hired to do, i.e., make prosecutorial calls that are sound but possibly unpopular, he’s not exactly a profile in courage.

The truth is that prosecutors don’t always follow the evidence wherever it leads. If they did, every crime would result in charges; in fact, many crimes, if not most, do not. The “rule of law” about which this attorney general is fond of speaking has always involved discretion: An administration and its prosecutors make policy choices about where to allocate the scarce resources available for crime-fighting. Very often, the guilty are knowingly permitted to go free — not because they are above the law but because factual guilt is neither the only nor the most significant factor in many cases.

In the case of the interrogators, the argument against further investigation (let alone prosecution) is overwhelming. If we take just waterboarding, the legal prerequisites simply aren’t there. Although President Obama seemed to absolve the CIA of liability back in the spring, both he and his attorney general left the prosecutorial door open a crack for interrogators who went beyond the controversial guidance DOJ had issued in 2002. But that guidance did not establish lines between lawful and unlawful conduct. To be guilty of a crime, you have to violate a statute, not a memo.

Here, the Justice Department is caught between the administration’s red-meat rhetoric and its staid legal analysis. When speaking for the benefit of their anti-war base, Obama and Holder thoughtlessly brand all waterboarding as “torture” — no matter how or why it is administered. But in court cases (as I’ve detailed here), the Justice Department has quietly conceded that federal law makes torture exceedingly difficult to prove (i.e., federal law ensures that the ignominious label “torture” is reserved for especially heinous, malevolent abuse).

Not only must there be an infliction of extreme physical or mental suffering; the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended to torture his victim. In congressional testimony, Holder himself has admitted that if a government official had a purpose different from causing extreme pain, he could not be guilty of torture even if he actually caused extreme pain.

It is highly unlikely that the CIA interrogators induced the excruciating pain necessary to commit torture as a matter of law. Regardless of whether they did, though, it is abundantly clear that they were not trying to torture anyone. That doesn’t mean any harshness that exceeded DOJ guidance was a good thing, or that administrative discipline is not an option for interrogators who went overboard.

It also doesn’t mean that Congress is barred from tweaking the torture statute so that, in the future, the crime is not so tough to prove. But it does mean Holder shouldn’t need to assign a prosecutor to grasp that there is no good-faith basis to proceed with a criminal investigation. Contrary to the apparent lesson of the Black Panther case, a desire to please the left wing is not generally thought of as a good-faith basis for either dropping or pursuing a prosecution.

Which brings us to the last point: Even if there weren’t insuperable legal hurdles to a torture prosecution, there are patently obvious policy reasons not to go where the attorney general is thinking of going. The 9/11 atrocities should not have happened. The nation was vulnerable to them, however, because of a governmental culture of risk-aversion: Justice Department rules discouraged cooperation between intelligence agents and criminal investigators; the FBI refused to allow its criminal investigators to help locate two of the suicide-terrorists its intelligence division had discovered were in the country a couple of weeks before the attacks; Osama bin Laden was not killed when the chance presented itself because the rules of engagement were loaded with so many caveats that CIA agents were unsure whether they’d be acclaimed or indicted.

We have been down this road before and we know where it leads. Eric Holder has managed to find reasons not to follow the evidence wherever it takes him on a number of occasions in his career. It’s not much of a stretch to conclude that promoting national security is a better rationale than the ones that have sufficed to date.


— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

[JJB1970]

This is not a Conservative, Liberal, neocon, etc issue.

Why did the US detain these people?


All excellent points in that post.

I think the reason for a lot of the angry rhetoric around this issue is that it has been nearly eight years now since the original crime was committed and justice has yet to be served. Because of that I think this will always be a contentious issue that has little to do with Conservative, Liberal, etc.

[wigon]

Yeah like in 1995 a survey conducted among Americans Males, was that 13 Million served in Viet-Nam, mostly in Seals, SF, SOG etc. None were cooks, grunts, etc.

(actually less than 3 Million Americans served)


Wigon, tell you what, PM me his name and I will check to see if he is a real deal SF. At this point, my gut feeling is that he is not the story sounds like bull. I was in El Salvador in the late 60's. Also we have some older SF members on this forum.


He wasn't there in the 60's, he was there in the 80's. I also saw all of his pictures from El-Salvador posing with Salvadoran military, along with his captured FMLN flag. I also saw other photos of him in a Green Beret dress uniform. I haven't talked to that friend in many years but I can try to look up some old emails to see if I still have his Dad's name if you want to look him up to verify his story. But with the ton of Green Beret memorabilia and photos, he would have had to have lived a serious fantasy if he was making it all up.

Wigon

[Hollis]

He wasn't there in the 60's, he was there in the 80's. I also saw all of his pictures from El-Salvador posing with Salvadoran military, along with his captured FMLN flag. I also saw other photos of him in a Green Beret dress uniform. I haven't talked to that friend in many years but I can try to look up some old emails to see if I still have his Dad's name if you want to look him up to verify his story. But with the ton of Green Beret memorabilia and photos, he would have had to have lived a serious fantasy if he was making it all up.

Wigon


Probably he is ok............. The SF community is pretty tight, you can do it yourself if you wish.

Thanks for the update.

[Hollis]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/01/suicide_of_the_west_98112.html

"By Thomas Sowell (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowell/)

Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi-- the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people-- is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in the Western democracies in our time.

In ways large and small, domestically and internationally, the West is surrendering on the installment plan to Islamic extremists.
http://ads.forbes.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.ads/realclearpolitics.com/story/L27/1320036928/Block/OasDefault_v5/RCP_RightMedia_win_080301/RCP_RightMedia_win_080619.html/51796a39416b71684534414141662f54?_RM_EMPTY_&

The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."

He wrote this long before Barack Obama became President of the United States. But this administration epitomizes the "concessions and smiles" approach to countries that are our implacable enemies.

Western Europe has gone down that path before us but we now seem to be trying to catch up.

Still, the release of a mass-murdering terrorist, who went home to a hero's welcome in Libya, shows that President Obama is not the only one who wants to move away from the idea of a "war on terror"-- as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.

The ostensible reason for releasing al-Megrahi was compassion for a man terminally ill. It is ironic that this was said in Scotland, for exactly 250 years ago another Scotsman-- Adam Smith-- said, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.""




Rest is on the site.

[JKD]

President Obama is not the only one who wants to move away from the idea of a "war on terror"-- as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.

I think they're just wanting to do away with the phrase "war on terror" because it's retarded. A war on "terror" is something that can never be won. But I don't think anyone is actually suggesting we should stop going after terrorists.

[Hollis]

I think they're just wanting to do away with the phrase "war on terror" because it's retarded. A war on "terror" is something that can never be won. But I don't think anyone is actually suggesting we should stop going after terrorists.


I am not sure on that assumption by the author, but he did make a point. Maybe a change in tactics not goals.

[Excalibur]

if this is done for saving dozens of people's lives, then i don't see it as crime. usually terrorists are tough guys and some pressure is necessary to break them.