[quote]hazarddude334 wrote:
you now who is a disgrace people like you who compare waterboarding to killing little children you liberal cry babies are so blinded for all these terrorist and there helpers that you would rather see your own country men die before you break one of the finger nails bc he could cause infection and hurt them.
the problem is that germany lost its balls in ww2 and now would rather hide and let usa take care of the world problems and then blame us for all of them[/quote]
Geesh where to start. It’s called a slipper slope my friend. It starts here with torturing a person because of a real serious reason and ends in the torture of people for no reason at all. Regardless, it what is the point! IT IS THE WRONG INFORMATION ANYWAY. The reason we torture them is because we don’t know what they are hiding so when they tell us something how will we know it’s the truth. Logic class 101. That easy.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Force wrote:
Oh it gets information. It’s just wrong.
Do you mean “wrong” as in the information is factually wrong, or that the technique is morally wrong?
But dude it is just wrong man.
To claim that all info gleaned through torture is factually wrong is preposterous. It is funny to see the fools line up and do just that.
curious as to exactly what percentage is factually correct according to your sources who have actually tortured. Because is once again it’s you against all experts/u.s. military on this one.
From the known confessions we know that the vast majority of information was simply made up, and the actual real information was already known. Also one would imagine that if waterboarding was that effective then it would still be in use and would have been used on more than 3 persons.
[/quote]
Good post. I have yet to see anyone really credible making the case for torture. Spineless politicians (Romney, Rudy), lawyers (Yoo, Addington, Gonzalez) and journalists who never served (pick all but a handful of conservative pundits) are on one side of the issue. On the other: a former commandant of the Marine Corps, torture victim John McCain, General and Secretary of State Colin Powell, maybe the most experienced U.S. military interrogator alive today, Colonel Stuart Herrington, and thousands more.
[quote]lixy wrote:
All sizes | got an enemy of our democracy and freedom? | Flickr - Photo Sharing! [/quote]
At first I thought the sign said “Impeach peace”
The guy should have made the “for” a little more legible.
When you torture someone, they don’t tell you what they know. They tell you what you want to hear.
Often the viewpoints of two groups, are so different, that it is unreconcilable, even if there were accuracy to the information so much gets lost in translation (I’m not even talk about language here), that really all torture does is paint the picture you want to see.
Take for example, Al Qaeda operative pre 911 being tortured.
Could have really divulged valuable information regarding the planes attacking the Twin Towers?
Most likely random camel fucking Al Qaeda operative, doesn’t see these attacks as terrorist, so in barking at him about TERRORIST ATTACKS he knows about your already not speaking his language.
It’s like when Mc Cain was kidnapped in North Vietnam, they tried to get him to sign a confession for ILLEGALLY ENTERING NORTH VIETNAMESE AIRSPACE AS A VOLUNTEER FOR TERROR BOMBING RAIDS ON VIETNAMESE CHILDREN.
He ended up signing that document, after many beatings and tortures but divulged no valuable information.
They got what they wanted to hear.
To return to my case on the Al Qaeda operative, you are asking him a line of questioning similar to that which Mc Cain experienced.
He cannot be honest to the questioning because it doesnt even register with his most basic thoughts on the subject.
Further, in asking about terrorist operations, how many pipe dreams do you think he has heard of? Even if he tells you something, all of them WILL be truthful, but are they valuable?
I’ve heard friends of mine talking about doing illegal, criminal, even heinous things (I’m not a Middle Eastern dude here either), if I were tortured I could divulege all sorts of heinous thoughts and ideas I’ve heard of. Would they be valuable tho?
Brutality and terrorizing the detainees will only get you so far. Probably just get them to say what you want to hear.
I think only more complex methods can get better results. Further, there are some really excellent psychological tactics one could use.
Have we ever considered, putting the pows in familiar situations?
How about making interrogations room mock caves, having people who speak the native language spekaing to them, of their same race and religion and pretending to be a part of a worldwide terror organization ourself, speaking to them in their language and tongue. Saying we rescued them from American capitivity, after having been subjected to some of these more brutal methods.
You’d prolly get better results from this too.
Thinking on this subject makes me want to learn about interrogation.
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info? [/quote]
[i]Hanns-Joachim Schraff was the greatest German interrogator in World War II. He worked primarily on captured US airmen and he was so respected for ability to extract secrets that he was dubbed �??The Master�?? by his peers. What vicious tactics did he use to get this information? What horrific torment did he inflict on US airmen? Kindness and a respect for human dignity.
Schraff correctly realized that only a bare fraction of captured enemies would have information of immediate tactical use. And it is highly unlikely that one could extract that information in time to use it. So torturing an enemy to get the �??whole story�?? would be a waste of time. Additionally it would run the risk of getting false information from the prisoner.
Instead, he did everything in his power to help the captives feel relaxed and safe. He would have long talks with the captives and discuss philosophy or some other seemingly safe topic for a prisoner to discuss. All the while, he was collecting bits and pieces of information that he would assemble and use to support the German war effort. Their best interrogator, and he never had to raise his voice.
As a result, after the war Schraff wasn�??t tried for war crimes. Instead he was invited to the US to speak to the military about his interrogation techniques. These techniques have come to be used by trained interrogators worldwide.[/i]
Naturally, our modern American interrogation techniques are much more effective than those outdated, barbaric Nazi techniques.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info? [/quote]
Three people were water boarded.
Three.
So even if it would work there is no need to institutionalize it.
Your president has the right to grant a pardon, and the ticking time bomb scenario is one of the reasons why.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info?
Hanns-Joachim Schraff.[/quote]
That deserves a link-
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info?
[i]Hanns-Joachim Schraff was the greatest German interrogator in World War II. He worked primarily on captured US airmen and he was so respected for ability to extract secrets that he was dubbed â¿¿The Masterâ¿¿ by his peers. What vicious tactics did he use to get this information? What horrific torment did he inflict on US airmen? Kindness and a respect for human dignity.
Schraff correctly realized that only a bare fraction of captured enemies would have information of immediate tactical use. And it is highly unlikely that one could extract that information in time to use it. So torturing an enemy to get the â¿¿whole storyâ¿¿ would be a waste of time. Additionally it would run the risk of getting false information from the prisoner.
Instead, he did everything in his power to help the captives feel relaxed and safe. He would have long talks with the captives and discuss philosophy or some other seemingly safe topic for a prisoner to discuss. All the while, he was collecting bits and pieces of information that he would assemble and use to support the German war effort. Their best interrogator, and he never had to raise his voice.
As a result, after the war Schraff wasnâ¿¿t tried for war crimes. Instead he was invited to the US to speak to the military about his interrogation techniques. These techniques have come to be used by trained interrogators worldwide.[/i]
Naturally, our modern American interrogation techniques are much more effective than those outdated, barbaric Nazi techniques.[/quote]
lol.
His methods are the same methods used by our guys in many many cases. We have only waterboarded three assholes so far and these were fanatical leaders of AQ. The friendly treatment wasn’t working with them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info?
[i]Hanns-Joachim Schraff was the greatest German interrogator in World War II. He worked primarily on captured US airmen and he was so respected for ability to extract secrets that he was dubbed �??The Master�?? by his peers. What vicious tactics did he use to get this information? What horrific torment did he inflict on US airmen? Kindness and a respect for human dignity.
Schraff correctly realized that only a bare fraction of captured enemies would have information of immediate tactical use. And it is highly unlikely that one could extract that information in time to use it. So torturing an enemy to get the �??whole story�?? would be a waste of time. Additionally it would run the risk of getting false information from the prisoner.
Instead, he did everything in his power to help the captives feel relaxed and safe. He would have long talks with the captives and discuss philosophy or some other seemingly safe topic for a prisoner to discuss. All the while, he was collecting bits and pieces of information that he would assemble and use to support the German war effort. Their best interrogator, and he never had to raise his voice.
As a result, after the war Schraff wasn�??t tried for war crimes. Instead he was invited to the US to speak to the military about his interrogation techniques. These techniques have come to be used by trained interrogators worldwide.[/i]
Naturally, our modern American interrogation techniques are much more effective than those outdated, barbaric Nazi techniques.[/quote]
Great post. His American counterpart is perhaps even more interesting:
"Six months before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison broke into public view, a small and fairly obscure private association of United States Marine Corps members posted on its Web site a document on how to get enemy POWs to talk.
The document described a situation very similar to the one the United States faces in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a fanatical and implacable enemy, intense pressure to achieve quick results, a brutal war in which the old rules no longer seem to apply.
Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report’s author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.
…
Moran’s whole approach�??and Hans Joachim Scharff’s, too�??was built on the assumption that few if any prisoners are likely to possess decisive information about imminent plans. (And as one former Marine interrogator says, even if a prisoner does have information of the “ticking bomb” variety�??where the nuke is going to go off an hour from now, in the classic if overworked example�??under duress or torture he is most likely to try to run out the clock by making something up rather than reveal the truth.) Rather, it is the small and seemingly inconsequential bits of evidence that prisoners may give away once they start talking�??about training, weapons, commanders, tactics�??that, when assembled into a larger mosaic, build up the most complete and valuable picture of the enemy’s organization, intentions, and methods.
…
Moran’s report had an immediate impact. The Navy and the Marines recruited second-generation Japanese-Americans to teach an intensive one-year language course for interrogators that included a strong emphasis on Japanese culture. James Corum notes that the graduates of this course were among the most effective interrogators in the Pacific Island campaigns of 1944 and 1945: Marine interrogators deployed to the Marianas in June of 1944 were able to supply their commanders with the complete Japanese order of battle within forty-eight hours of landing on Saipan and Tinian."
We took the easy way out, and also the way that has stained America around the globe. Well done, Mr. President.
Sorry boys but these are totally different situations. The information required to break a terrorist cell is not the same type of info required in WW2.
[quote]Force wrote:
Do you really think someone being tortured is going to give real and accurate information? [/quote]
Yes.
[quote]pat wrote:
Force wrote:
Do you really think someone being tortured is going to give real and accurate information?
Yes.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know if one can really answer so readily and confidently.
I suggest that we test these techniques on randomly-selected American university students. In lieu of having to take their final examinations, each subject in the study will be subjected to waterboarding and other advanced interrogation techniques.
During the procedure the subject will then be asked detailed questions pertaining to material they should have learned in their various courses. They will, naturally, be instructed to give false answers to the interrogators; the consequences of giving a correct answer being that they will receive a failing grade for the pertinent course.
If, however, the interrogators are able to elicit correct and accurate answers from these students, then waterboarding and other techniques can be considered effective tools for interrogating prisoners.
Any takers? Pat?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info? [/quote]
What’s funny is your hysterical blindness to anything factual, and your utter willingness to believe anything the Bushies tell you.
Torture does work at forcing false confessions and sending valuable agents on wild goose chases. On the 3 we tortured ALL the truthful information was already available on the CIA’s most secret of weapons ----codenamed: Google.
The rest of the confessions are pure garbage.
For example of these confessions from KSM which ones were true:
“suicide operatives hijack a plane over the Pacific and crash it into a skyscraper on the US West Coast; a plan in early 2002 to send al-Qa’ida operatives to conduct attacks in the U.S.; and a plot in early 2003 to employ a network of Pakistanis … to smuggle explosives into New York and to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and a bridge in New York.”
If you guess’d none you’d be right. Meanwhile imagine the manpower needed to check out all crap he “confessed” to.
It’s just overwhelmingly obvious that it simply isn’t effective at getting good intel—
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info?
What’s funny is your hysterical blindness to anything factual, and your utter willingness to believe anything the Bushies tell you.
Torture does work at forcing false confessions and sending valuable agents on wild goose chases. On the 3 we tortured ALL the truthful information was already available on the CIA’s most secret of weapons ----codenamed: Google.
The rest of the confessions are pure garbage.
For example of these confessions from KSM which ones were true:
“suicide operatives hijack a plane over the Pacific and crash it into a skyscraper on the US West Coast; a plan in early 2002 to send al-Qa’ida operatives to conduct attacks in the U.S.; and a plot in early 2003 to employ a network of Pakistanis … to smuggle explosives into New York and to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and a bridge in New York.”
If you guess’d none you’d be right. Meanwhile imagine the manpower needed to check out all crap he “confessed” to.
It’s just overwhelmingly obvious that it simply isn’t effective at getting good intel—[/quote]
It is even funnier that you would think the CIA would completely share what they learned. Face the facts, the CIA isn’t going to tell us everything they learned, merely things that they think are harmless.
They are not going to give us all the names they have learned using this technique.
Three men have been waterboarded by the CIA. They have told us as little as possible about it.
Only an assclown can make the claim “it doesn’t work”.
are any of yous cia or fbi or secret service or hell even prior miltary with top secret clearence if not you do not get the mind set of these people. so your all basically all talking out of your ass and nick picking quotes to make you feel like your point is valid.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Keep posting. Kind of funny to see how you can all convince yourself torture cannot work.
Who will be the first to admit he illegally tortured someone and got good info?
What’s funny is your hysterical blindness to anything factual, and your utter willingness to believe anything the Bushies tell you.
Torture does work at forcing false confessions and sending valuable agents on wild goose chases. On the 3 we tortured ALL the truthful information was already available on the CIA’s most secret of weapons ----codenamed: Google.
The rest of the confessions are pure garbage.
For example of these confessions from KSM which ones were true:
“suicide operatives hijack a plane over the Pacific and crash it into a skyscraper on the US West Coast; a plan in early 2002 to send al-Qa’ida operatives to conduct attacks in the U.S.; and a plot in early 2003 to employ a network of Pakistanis … to smuggle explosives into New York and to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and a bridge in New York.”
If you guess’d none you’d be right. Meanwhile imagine the manpower needed to check out all crap he “confessed” to.
It’s just overwhelmingly obvious that it simply isn’t effective at getting good intel—
It is even funnier that you would think the CIA would completely share what they learned. Face the facts, the CIA isn’t going to tell us everything they learned, merely things that they think are harmless.
They are not going to give us all the names they have learned using this technique.
Three men have been waterboarded by the CIA. They have told us as little as possible about it.
Only an assclown can make the claim “it doesn’t work”.[/quote]
That’s the military and every expert, apparently “assclowns”.
[quote]100meters wrote:
That’s the military and every expert, apparently “assclowns”.
[/quote]
Look at the bang up job we’ve done in Iraq. I wouldn’t let any of those military geniuses run my fucking remote control.
So there take on torture is worth less than a gallon of toilet water.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
That’s the military and every expert, apparently “assclowns”.
Look at the bang up job we’ve done in Iraq. I wouldn’t let any of those military geniuses run my fucking remote control.
So there take on torture is worth less than a gallon of toilet water. [/quote]
The military didn’t get to run Iraq, that was/is the problem.
[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
That’s the military and every expert, apparently “assclowns”.
Look at the bang up job we’ve done in Iraq. I wouldn’t let any of those military geniuses run my fucking remote control.
So there take on torture is worth less than a gallon of toilet water.
The military didn’t get to run Iraq, that was/is the problem.[/quote]
I think that most of the high ranking brass in the military is just as political as congress. I see no difference in a General decrying torture and some junior Senator from New Hampshire