1. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    The administration has released the "torture proceedures?" used by the CIA on murderous terrorists. Water boarding, loud music, slapping, application of insects (what did they do, bring them to South Louisiana?) sleep deprivation etc. and then someday they wil be returned alive and in good health to their families. Now maby the terrorists will adopt these relativly compasionate proceedures rather than use their current interogation proceedures. When they have American prisoners they brutaly torture their victems to death over two or three days depending on the endurance of their victems. When we discover the bodies, it takes several hours to clear the boobie traps from the area. Then another 12 to 18 hrs. to remove boobie traps from inside the bodies. The victems can only be identified by DNA i.e. no finger prints, retina scans or teath. This was done while they were still conscious. These are real nice people and the concern of the MSM, Congress and this administration for their rights is way past contempt. ATTENTION: U.S. Congress, this administration and the MSM. I DON'T CARE. You have my permision as a voting U.S. citizen to use any method you choose up to and including waterboarding them with hot hog lard. I can not begin to comprehend the willfull ignorance of so many of our misleaders. I aprove of this rant.
     
  2. TranterUK

    TranterUK Guest

    OK I have some info here. During the second Gulf war I was with a Jag Colonel when the first cases of 'torture' came in. The story was putting 'pressure' on suspects helped save allied lives by revealing the positions of IEDs, bomb factories, arms dumps etc.

    The conclusion, all be it made from a position a safety far from the action was that some persuasion was justified if kept to the minimum required to gain intel and used only when a link had been established between the suspect and the threats.

    It was and is inevitable mistakes would be made. What would never be acceptable would be excess beyond reason given.

    As stated correctly in the 'rant' above, the other side have no such concerns and will do the most terrible things without reason or hesitation. To doubt this is not to know what these 'people' are like. 45-70 is thus sadly on the money.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 17, 2009

  3. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    So Barry Hussein our great Haji leader is concerned with the human rights of the terrorists, huh? HOW ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL THAT ARE CAPTURED, TORTURED, AND KILLED IN GRUESOME WAYS OR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS THAT ARE KILLED BY THE F****** RAGHEADS?!?!?!?!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: In my book, someone wants to plant a bomb in a school or on a bus, they give up ANY claims to human rights when captured!!!! In my book, a captured terrorist is free game...torture, beat, injure, or do whatever. F*** the ragheads!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: Terrorists don't deserve mercy, they have no thought of mercy for the innocent women and children that they kill. They want to believe that being executed by us while conducting a jihad will make them a martyr and send them to paradise, fine. But I say, we make them BEG for us to send them to allah:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
     
  4. 4EvrLearning

    4EvrLearning New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Left Coast
    I'm very concerned that too many Western countries (and their collective leadership) are not willing to believe the truth about the horrific acts that have happened, and will continue to, at the hands of t'orists, and by their denial they will make decisions that will have dire consequences for the rest of us. Mercy, decency, humanity...none of these seem to register on any scale with these... 'people.'

    I would despair if our country were to condone and practice the level of inhumane, unthinkable treatment that so-called "inf'dels" receive. It is against such barbarism that we are fighting...that my 3 children have/are putting their lives on the line for, along with their brothers and sisters in arms from America and elsewhere.

    To use methods of interrogation designed to glean intelligence, while going no further than necessary to do so, is an unfortunate but requisite strategy in war.

    Lastly....the decision to release this information to the public is beyond my ability to understand. If the war were well behind us, that would be one thing...but while it's going on? One has to wonder about motive here...and/or IQ.

    P.S. My "abbreviations" are on purpose....
     
  5. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    What really gripes me more than the pros and cons of what we do is the fact that the subject is even out there in the first place. Damn whoever it was that first mentioned waterboarding. There are some things you just can't have being common knowledge for so many reasons. For one you don't want to give your enemies any ideas on what things they might try themselves. Secondly you don't want to prepair a potential prisoner for what he may encounter. There is a shock factor to becoming captured and those in intellligence use this to their advantage. Having your detainee in fear is not altogether a bad thing. Interrogation is an art and psychology plays more than a minor part. Public discussions of what we will do, wont do, might do, and can't do, undermine our entire detainee interview process. Screw the ACLU...they don't need to know everything, they aren't the ones on the wall at night.
     
  6. Islandboy

    Islandboy New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    Off the right coast
    War is War, most just don't recognise it for what it is yet.
    Will they do anything to destroy the western world and Christanity?
    Yes.
    Will we do anything to defend the same?
    Some will for sure, but will the rest?
    Hmmm.
    If someone had information on the whereabouts of my kith and kin in danger would I waterBoard them?

    Nah, a garden hose at full pressure in the right place is more effective.

    Do not fall prey to liberal semantics, after all isn't that what the Vichy Govt. was all about?
     
  7. delta13soultaker

    delta13soultaker New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,948
    Location:
    Depends on Uncle Sam's whim every 3 yrs.
    Should the president or his administration allow any HUMINT policies to be released? Hell no. Stupid doesn't start to cover it. But that is the inexperienced out of touch people he has up there. They never even ran a business...you think they can manage a dynamic countrtinsurgency that spans a whole hemisphere?

    Should we torture people for information though? No. It doesn't work. Sorry, it don't. It does in the movies. Not in real life. All we do is create more enemies.

    First, if you're really important or have some emerging threat info in your brain then there's no time to waste beating you, leaving you in dark places, or putting ice water up your butt. If you're really that important you're worth $10 worth of any generic psychoactive drug and you'll feel pretty cool about helping out.

    Second, if you can't get the funny company to juice Jamil with anything...you can always write him up for a crime against the host nation and their police will happily interview him in medieval fashion.

    Anyways, torture is a bad policy. What's the point of being free of evil if you're going to practice evil? The end of that road is inevitable.

    Let politicians do what they do. They talk much but say little.

    Freedom is a strange thing. Fighting insurgents taught me that the only way to keep freedom is to give it away.
     
  8. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,914
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Very interesting post Delta, thanks.

    While I 100% respect your view about torture, I tend to disagree a bit.

    There have been military officials that have said that certain types of ‘torture’ does work, and has saved lives. Maybe this is kind of a Clinton thing, in what the definition of is, is.

    In my mind, these guys do not qualify for Geneva convention rights and should not be afforded any especially when it comes to information gathering. I don’t care what we do to these guys as long as we get the info that we need. If drugs can do it, fine. If we have to shoot them in the knees, great, do it! If we have to kill his cell mate in front of him, then tell him he is next so be it.

    As it is now, the prisoners at Gitmo can throw their own body waste on our military with no consequences. In my opinion, the guards should go into that cell and beat the teeth out of the punks do that. For some reason I bet that those kinds of actions would come to stop.

    I do agree with your statement that ‘REAL’ torture is a bad policy, but it shouldn’t be ruled totally off the table in a case by case basis.

    I also like your insight when you said, “Freedom is a strange thing. Fighting insurgents taught me that the only way to keep freedom is to give it away.”

    Thank you.

    This brings another thought to mind. Beings now that we can’t even yell at suspected terrorist for anything, I wonder if the ‘arrests’ are going to go down while the death toll proportionally goes up?
     
  9. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,914
    Location:
    New Mexico
    I just got this in my e-mail and thought beings we are on this subject, you might be interested.

    [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']OLC TORTURE MEMOS DECLASSIFIED[/FONT][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']

    The disclosure of four Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel opinions on interrogation and torture is likely to have significant political and perhaps legal consequences. But their release is also a landmark in national security classification policy.

    These OLC memos, released by the Justice Department yesterday, were among the most urgently sought and the most fiercely protected classified records of recent years. They addressed fundamental questions of national policy and yet they were off limits to public review and discussion by virtue of their classification status.

    "The interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported," President Obama said in a statement explaining his decision to declassify the memos. "Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time."

    But remarkably, this sensible view -- that information which has reached the public domain should not remain classified -- does not characterize or dictate classification policy.

    "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information," according to Executive Order 12958, as amended.

    Nor can judicial review reliably compel disclosure of such information. In order to win declassification and disclosure of previously released information, a FOIA plaintiff must show that each of the following conditions is met: 1) the information previously released is as specific as the information that is being requested; 2) the information requested matches the information previously released; and 3) the information requested has been made public through an official and documented disclosure (Fitzgibbon v. CIA, D.C. Circuit, 1990).

    The new release does not alter this non-disclosure policy, which lends credence to the statement of former CIA director Michael Hayden that the government could have successfully argued against disclosure of the OLC memos in court, as he favored.

    But the four newly declassified memos are now themselves "an official and documented disclosure." This means that not only have their combined 124 pages been published (with limited redactions) but also that an obstacle to the release of a related body of legal and intelligence information has now been removed. Such material can no longer legitimately remain classified. Furthermore, the new release will also enable participants and other officials to speak publicly about the issues involved.

    The memos are shocking in their calculated brutality and in their likely violation of categorical legal prohibitions against torture. They are, as President Obama stated, evidence of a "dark and painful chapter in our history" involving practices that should "never take place again." But they also provide abundant food for thought as well as new insight into their authors' thinking, and their predicament.

    The authorization for coercive interrogation of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was predicated on the "certain" belief that "he is withholding information regarding terrorist networks in the United States... and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States" and that "he refuses to divulge" the information. Furthermore, there was an estimated threat level "equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks." "This opinion is limited to these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply." ("Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative" [pdf], August 1, 2002, at page 1).

    In other words, it appears that the OLC authors proceeded not out of sadism or indifference, but out of desperation.

    They recognized that under other circumstances (such as law enforcement), the coercive practices that they were authorizing could be thought to "shock the conscience." But they concluded that coercive interrogation by the CIA did not violate that standard since it was only being used where the detainee had "knowledge of imminent terrorist threats against the USA" and that it had already proved effective in producing "critical, actionable intelligence." ("Application of U.S. Obligations Under Article 16" [pdf], May 30, 2005, at pp. 3, 29ff).

    The development of the OLC memos suggests that if torture is to be permanently abolished, alternatives to coercive interrogation that are at least as effective need to be identified, or else the occasional prospect of an "imminent terrorist threat" threatening thousands of lives must be accepted in principle as preferable to the extreme violations of human dignity authorized by OLC.

    A couple of other points. Both President Obama and Attorney General Holder noted that the OLC memos were released as a consequence of ongoing litigation. In other words, their release is thanks to the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU and its co-plaintiffs, and the resonance that the lawsuit found in the press, the blogosphere and the public. Congressional oversight did not get the job done (despite a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for these records). This reflects a significant and dangerous weakness on the part of Congress.

    Yesterday, former CIA Director Michael Hayden told MSNBC that the CIA interrogation program "began life as a covert action." If that is true, it means that there should be a Presidential "finding" authorizing the program, and that such a finding should have been provided to Congressional overseers. As a covert action, the program may also have entailed active deception. It's one more loose end that remains to be tied.

    Michael Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey criticized the release of the OLC memos in "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror," Wall Street Journal, April 17.

    The ACLU called for appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate torture under the Bush Administration, in an April 16 release.

    [/FONT]
     
  10. TranterUK

    TranterUK Guest

    Easy to say, but I agree.
     
  11. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    For the reasons I posted previously I don't believe in discussing what I would or wouldn't do under certain circumstances. Let me just say that generally I don't believe in sadistic physical torture that inflicts permanent injury. Besides being unethical, I believe it is possible to change your enemies mind by the example of your conduct. Having said that, there are always exceptions if there is enough at stake. You don't think I wouldn't put a hurting on someone that knew the location of a nuclear device set to go off in one of our cities? Hell yes, I'd do whatever was necessary.

    The problem the general public seems to have is in trying to define what torture is. Being forced to listen to rap music can be torture for me as is seeing and hearing Nancy Pelosi on TV. But as bad as those are I wouldn't say that exposing detainees to those things in an interrogation procedure would be ethically wrong. Interferring with someones sleep can be torture but I don't think it goes beyond the bounds of decency. I don't really believe giving one the sensation of drowning by waterboarding is crossing the line under some circumstances. Nor is keeping a detainees holding cell temperature uncomfortably warm or cool. Blinding , maiming, breaking bones, starvation, or anything resulting in permanent injury or death of course are normally going too far. But again, that's normally.
     
  12. delta13soultaker

    delta13soultaker New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,948
    Location:
    Depends on Uncle Sam's whim every 3 yrs.
    There is no doubt that HUMINT gathering techniques should not be discussed. That is just dumb.

    Fear of the unknown is as powerful as discomfort and pain; Remember that panic is the wolves greatest ally.

    The US general public wouldn't even have to worry about what techniques are or are not torture if the control-freak politicians and ACLU lawyers would stop micromanaging the military. I swear to God these stupid people, if their home was burning they would criticize the fire department for getting the carpet wet.

    For those that say certain techniques work. If you think about their position what else could they say? It is not that black & white. In counterinsurgency warfare not much is what it appears. What works this week will not next week; what works in one area will not in another; tactical victories can not be used to measure success. Interrogation isn't an exception. At best it is for determining deception or honesty.

    In 2004 there was all kinds of policies that came down saying what you could and could not do at tactical interrogations at/below division level. This argument is not new. I remember hearing in S2/G2/J2 and at MI companies.

    Here's the factor that nobody considers when they go micromanaging the military. If you tell us to get a result...you're going to get it. Even if it is unrealistic or impossible, you're still going to get it. If you take away our resources and still want results, you're still going to get results. So by trying to make something stop what you may be doing is enabling it to happen even more and worse. So no arrests won't stop and it will not effect casualty count. There's 40 ways to skin a bobcat.

    It's like if the minimum standard has always been 70% and now you demand 80% across the board. You don't allow more time or resources to do this but demand an increase. Okay fine you're paperwork will say 80%. In actuality since we're doing it that way we'll let it drop below 70% since you don't understand anyway.

    This conversation wouldn't even need to be contemplated if the president and his reps actually backed up the military.

    Pres Bush enforced his policy changes without it becoming a public circus.
     
  13. jacksonco

    jacksonco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,232
    Location:
    Jackson County West Virginia
    As far as I am concerned we can use torture to gather information that would prevent an atttack on our country. If some low life scum ball had one of my grand children hid some where I can guaratee that the old torture methods from the Spanish Inquisitions would come into play. I feel the same about the terrorists. We need to go medival on their butts as it seems that they respond to this type of tlc.
     
  14. I must certainly agree with you on this, Delta, at least generally. I would add, however, that there are few standards in this world that truly are, or even can be, absolutes. I tend to be what, in philosophy, is called a teleologist, and an act utilitarian, one who looks not at rules, qua rules, but at probable consequences from a utilitarian perspective. Torture is clearly an ethical wrong, but what if the choices facing one are limited only to ethical wrongs? Is it not more reasonable, and indeed more ethical, to choose the least of those wrongs, even if the least of them involves extracting information forcefully? For example (an extreme one, admittedly), what if a captive enemy withholds information that, unless disclosed, will result in the deaths of many soldiers? Forceful interrogation might convince him otherwise. Trust me, there are methods that WILL work. :cool: Would that be morally "wrong?" Yes, indeed it would, but would that not be a lesser ethical violation than allowing many to die? Unfortunately, ethical choices are not always black or white, 1 or 0, on or off.

    Sorry to wax philosophically, but it's what I do for a living. :eek::D
     
  15. delta13soultaker

    delta13soultaker New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,948
    Location:
    Depends on Uncle Sam's whim every 3 yrs.
    Yes I see but the fact is this. Suppose that you deliberately recover a key individual with this life or death intelligence. And in order to exploit this capture and get what he knows you put him to all the questions with torture. How reliable are the answers under pain to say anything?

    In the end you will find your captive told you nothing valuable that my well paid informants didn't already report.

    Further, once a cell member is captured and confirmed by his superior, then everything he knows may be changed/dissolved in order to protect other cells and to use HUMINT exploited from him could compromise your informants. They use counterintelligence too you know.

    At best you use the individual to link other members. Exploit his phone etc. Learn where to watch and wait for his next in charge to gain responsibility so as to deny his cell the room to train, gather resources, plan, and maneuver.

    This hurry to quickly get emerging intelligence is usually rare. If it's happening it may strongly indicate your HUMINT efforts are being reactive. If you're operation is proactive there are few surprises and you can strike with large results with little effort.

    Torture is not just a ethical issue. It is a sign of weakness.
     
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Torture Report, or Senete Intelengence Committee Report Dec 11, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Arizona Court Allows Muslims to Torture Children Nov 14, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Egyptian “tortured to death” by police, Sep 21, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Afghan child bride's in-laws sentenced for torture May 5, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr MSF withdraws from lybia , too much torture in new state Jan 26, 2012