Originally Posted By dshyates "Let's get serious here: working on US street criminals may very well be entirely different than dealing with terrorists" What about dealing with the Mexican Drug Cartels? I am sure in your mind they are on the level of main street purse snatchers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <///Let's say that your prisoner is 100% without doubt a terrorist. And there's a ticking time bomb.........what makes you think he wouldn't just give his interrogators bogus information? What makes you think he wouldn't have a plausible but bogus story (or two, or three, or four) all ready to go in case he WAS captured and tortured? ///> <But in some scenarios the one being tortured would know that if he/she spits out a bogus story then the captors would realize fast it is bogus and restart the treatment.> How could they possibly know that? The whole point of the plausible bogus story is that it is one that would TAKE a while to check out - meanwhile, the ticking time bomb goes off. <I am not at all disregarding what you got going in #33 as your points have merit but I feel that there is no one size fits all on this stuff.> Sure there is. We stick to non-torture because: 1). It's not about who they are, it's about who we are. 2). It gets us back our standing and reputation. 3). It's far more likely to get us the info we want. And I'm not talking about street thugs, I'm talking about terrorists. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz...,00.html</a> "The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies." (snip) "Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden's chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures." It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings." Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush — era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases against detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary — traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began — administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience — Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating." (In other words, Cheney lied - a guy who was actually there said he stopped cooperating after torture.)
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If your business is war and the bulk of your profits are tied to military support services, then naturally, you don't want to see the war end. << I believe this. I believe the iraq war specifically was launched largely as a gift to the military industrial complex - you know, the warmongers. These GOP heavy hitters were displeased with the relative peace of Clinton's eight years and were determined to get the "world's most expensive military" back to shooting and bombing people. And many of you may remember Rumsfeld happily reporting that Iraq presented a more "target rich" environment after quickly growing bored of Afghanistan.
Originally Posted By dshyates I believe the Iraq war will in history be know as the Haliburton War. Similar to the Opium War.
Originally Posted By dshyates Seriously, how many teabaggers and Caribou Barbie supporters realize that what they at out in the streets screaming for is to send their kids off to die to make Dick Cheney and friends richer.
Originally Posted By dshyates Should I include that I believe that with the rise of AM Radio and W. The country is F'ed beyond repair?
Originally Posted By barboy Hold on there Dabob, I was very careful to say "in some scenarios". Surely you can grant me that one, right? Let's move on to these next ones shall we: ///1). It's not about who they are, it's about who we are./// That rhetoric has never worked with me---- I see it pop up around here fairly often on the terrorist topics. Why can't it be about them and us?.... Or just them? And just for clarification when people around here say "we" is that the USA, the USA and its comrades or the whole world minus the terrorists? ///2). It gets us back our standing and reputation./// That too means zilch to me. I don't care if the world looks up to the USA or not. Well, on second thought maybe I do care just a little: state elitism doesn't turn me on so the USA's slip in the global standings is OK by me....so we are #4 instead of #1 no problem Besides watching the same teams win year after year bores. ///3). It's far more likely to get us the info we want./// Now you're talkin! If true, then I am all for a non torture policy. I don't care about the "us and them" tired rhetoric (Hey, wasn't that a Pink Floyd song from Dark Side of the Moon?) and I definitely don't give a rip about world status/reputation(sorry davewasbaloo and to a lesser extent X, I just don't care at all) but I sure as hell care about effective ways to deal with terrorists--- hence, number #3 looks cool.
Originally Posted By DAR There's a group of that deserve to have their ass kicked as often as possible and that group is those who engage in terror.
Originally Posted By barboy ///What about dealing with the Mexican Drug Cartels? I am sure in your mind they are on the level of main street purse snatchers./// That looks sarcastic..... and I have no idea what your bigger point is since you highlighted my "Let's get serious here: working on US street criminals may very well be entirely different than dealing with terrorists" Would you clarify please?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Hold on there Dabob, I was very careful to say "in some scenarios". Surely you can grant me that one, right?> In what scenario? It's hard for me to believe that a terrorist who would HAVE a back up set of bogus information would have anything but a backup set of bogus information that by design could NOT be checked quickly. <Let's move on to these next ones shall we: ///1). It's not about who they are, it's about who we are./// That rhetoric has never worked with me---- I see it pop up around here fairly often on the terrorist topics. Why can't it be about them and us?.... Or just them? And just for clarification when people around here say "we" is that the USA, the USA and its comrades or the whole world minus the terrorists?> By "us" in this sense I meant the USA. (And AFAIK, Britain, for instance did not change its policy on torture as we did.) And if living up to our principles, as well as the treaties that WE ARE SIGNATORY TO AND PROMISED TO ABIDE BY doesn't "work with you," what can I say to that? To me those are vital things. <///2). It gets us back our standing and reputation./// That too means zilch to me. I don't care if the world looks up to the USA or not. Well, on second thought maybe I do care just a little: state elitism doesn't turn me on so the USA's slip in the global standings is OK by me....so we are #4 instead of #1 no problem Besides watching the same teams win year after year bores.> First of all, I do care if the rest of the world looks up to us or not. And I think you're missing the point a bit. If they look up to us, we're much more likely to get what we want foreign policy-wise. For a quick comparison, look at the difference between the 90's Gulf War, and the more recent Iraq war. In the former we did care about what the rest of the world thought, and carefully went about assembling a coalition that was a REAL coalition (not the US, Britain, and a handful of other countries who sent a handful of soldiers), including even Arab countries. When we went W's "who cares what the rest of the world thinks" way, we got a far less broad coalition, and injured ourselves in the eyes of both the Arab world, and our allies. That has repercussions far beyond the war itself. <///3). It's far more likely to get us the info we want./// Now you're talkin! If true, then I am all for a non torture policy.> Well, it is true. Glad to have you on board.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There's a group of that deserve to have their ass kicked as often as possible and that group is those who engage in terror.<< <a href="http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/100greatestcharacters/photos/55.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.empireonline.com/im...s/55.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates Not sarcastic at all, just trying to point out that you were minimizing what the cops of major cities deal with by citing street criminals and purse snatchers. The cops in So Cal, AZ, and TX regularly deal with Mexican Drug Cartels which rival terrorists in their brutality and tactics.
Originally Posted By barboy ///And if living up to our principles, as well as the treaties that WE ARE SIGNATORY TO AND PROMISED TO ABIDE BY doesn't "work with you," what can I say to that?/// You're right--- there is nothing to add since I just don't care what the US(or any state for that matter) signed before the world or didn't sign. I have no interest in those things since ideally I would like to see the US stay out of world affairs, close to always. ///If they look up to us, we're much more likely to get what we want foreign policy-wise./// Yes, I understand that is a prevailing argument....... and I don't care since I subscribe to **EXTREME** isolationism. "real" coalition of gulf 1 vs. "limited' coalition of Gulf 2 means nothing to me since I am not into globalism. I didn't support the first invasion nor the second. Again, I am an Isolationist. ///Well, it is true. Glad to have you on board./// We're good to go : D (and your 'board' was especially well timed)
Originally Posted By barboy I find it ironic that I asked for clarification and after reading your "clarified" #52 I am even more confused now than before. I know you tried to help and I appreciate that--- thanks anyway. ((It's 4am now and I haven't slept so maybe I am not alert))
Originally Posted By barboy ///In what scenario? It's hard for me to believe that a terrorist who would HAVE a back up set of bogus information would have anything but a backup set of bogus information that by design could NOT be checked quickly./// LOL, LOL I can't believe that I am still working on this; I really thought you would have granted me the "some scenarios" by now; this has made me laugh this morning. Look, we both know a terrorist could be a genious level operative or a simpleton holding a 68 IQ...... or anything in between, right? So is it not possible that a given terrorist might not think things out all the way?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >>>>///I've said it before. I've done hundreds of interrogations/// ///And Passholder, being the only expert on interrogation on LP as far as I know, would be the guy to listen to about this stuff/// I am really sorry but I just can not accept that as an kind of credible authority on interrogations of terrorists. Let's get serious here: working on US street criminals may very well be entirely different than dealing with terrorists, especially those from a completely different culture.<<<< I didn't appoint myself any "board expert", so I don't necessarily take any offense at your comment. However, I would offer that there isn't much difference in techniques and results with the comparisons you're making. I was taught what is called the Reid method back in 1983, and have taken advanced courses and refreshers ever since. I've taught it some myself, and have specialized in interrogating others who also interrogators themselves. The website for the John Reid method is: <a href="http://www.reid.com/" target="_blank">http://www.reid.com/</a> ... where you can read all about them and who utilizes them for yourself. There are variations on the theme certainly, but Reid is the standard. I use their principles to this day.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder My actual training was done by these guys: <a href="http://www.w-z.com/" target="_blank">http://www.w-z.com/</a> Who adapted the Reid method and added their own tweaks to it. Wicklander and Zulawski are Reid advocates.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<///In what scenario? It's hard for me to believe that a terrorist who would HAVE a back up set of bogus information would have anything but a backup set of bogus information that by design could NOT be checked quickly.///>> <LOL, LOL I can't believe that I am still working on this; I really thought you would have granted me the "some scenarios" by now; this has made me laugh this morning. Look, we both know a terrorist could be a genious level operative or a simpleton holding a 68 IQ...... or anything in between, right? So is it not possible that a given terrorist might not think things out all the way? > Think REALISTIC scenarios, not Hollywood. A simpleton with a 68 IQ is not going to be trusted by Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group with holding sensitive information. Anyone trusted to hold it is also going to know how to shield it. And how to throw people off the track if tortured. <<///And if living up to our principles, as well as the treaties that WE ARE SIGNATORY TO AND PROMISED TO ABIDE BY doesn't "work with you," what can I say to that?///>> <You're right--- there is nothing to add since I just don't care what the US(or any state for that matter) signed before the world or didn't sign. I have no interest in those things since ideally I would like to see the US stay out of world affairs, close to always.> You can be an isolationist yourself but still recognize a). the reality that the US is not; and b). the morality and utility of keeping one's promises, no? <<///If they look up to us, we're much more likely to get what we want foreign policy-wise.///>> <Yes, I understand that is a prevailing argument....... and I don't care since I subscribe to **EXTREME** isolationism.> "real" coalition of gulf 1 vs. "limited' coalition of Gulf 2 means nothing to me since I am not into globalism. I didn't support the first invasion nor the second. Again, I am an Isolationist.> Well, fine for you. But we're talking about whether it's better for the US to engage in torture or not; whether we should be isolationist or not is a WHOLE other question. (I myself would say we should be less interventionist, but not extreme isolationist.) But surely you recognize that the current reality is that the US is engaged all over the world. So the question of whether we should torture or not must be taken in that context, not the isolationist context you would LIKE us to be in. In other words, you can say "I don't care" but the people making our policy decisions have to. <<///Well, it is true. Glad to have you on board.///>> <We're good to go : D (and your 'board' was especially well timed)> Thanks.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Be nice to terrorists and they'll be nice to us, got it.<< Aw man! It's a rerun. I've seen this one before. A lot. I gotta find what else is on before my popcorn gets cold.
Originally Posted By DAR No most of you are right we shouldn't torture terrorists, it's not who we are as a country.
