TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- CIA destroyed interrogation tapes - who's to blame?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Chryz707 Agreed this waste of life should be killed, but if they were going to kill him, dont make a big deal over it, who gives a shit, he's a terrorist, just kill him out in the desert where no one cares and forget him, the end, but no everyone has to make a federal case. if we didnt make any records and just killed him there wouldnt be anything to have a scandal over. Fuck it feed him to some pigs on a Farm in Canada. Let him goto Allah via the pig. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo what native Hawaiians (there are only around 100,000 nationaly) don't comprehend is that it was either gonna be us or the French. you ever been to Haiti? yeah, don't. they also voted overwhelmingly to become a state, so... but thats another thread. |
Honestly, let's just stop all this crazy non-sense.
Let's just find a way to live together without having to destroy shit. There has to be a way, I can feel it.
Not that I think this matters much in regards to Democratic capitulation, but it does wreak of illegal activities. It's too much wishful thinking to hope someone will truly be held accountable:
| quote: |
| CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press WriterWed Dec 12, 11:29 AM ET The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics. Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons. While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed. The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay." U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July. At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books � and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order. Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue. Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client." In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation." For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation. Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case. Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases. "It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said. He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation." Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter and the government has not filed a response to Remes' request. ___ Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212...deotapes_courts |
Good work, Opus, as usual! 
I came up with this logic:
Whats is the same about the loss of the original moon landing tapes and the cia torture tapes?
They were both covered up! LOL!
If the people who were burning to death and had to jump out of the WTC (just to end their misery), could have had a choice; Jump out of the building? Or have a little water up your nose?.............I think they'd chose the water.
So we're torturing the poor Terrorists? Boohoo! I'm ALL BROKEN UP about it. 
How does anyone here propose that we get information out of them then? Ask nicely again and again and again and again...until we kill them with kindness??
It should also be pointed out that A.Q.'s interrogation techniques with our prisoners and hostages they take involves torture FAR beyond a little water up the nose...and usually ends with someone's head getting chopped off.
Stop living in some idealistic dream-land! We're at war. It's time to kick the enemy's ass and WIN! And I don't really care who on their side gets hurt in order for us to win! I don't want to see thousands more killed because some lunatic didn't get tucked in to his cell bunk every night with a kiss and a smile.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco If the people who were burning to death and had to jump out of the WTC (just to end their misery), could have had a choice; Jump out of the building? Or have a little water up your nose?.............I think they'd chose the water. So we're torturing the poor Terrorists? Boohoo! I'm ALL BROKEN UP about it. How does anyone here propose that we get information out of them then? Ask nicely again and again and again and again...until we kill them with kindness?? It should also be pointed out that A.Q.'s interrogation techniques with our prisoners and hostages they take involves torture FAR beyond a little water up the nose...and usually ends with someone's head getting chopped off. Stop living in some idealistic dream-land! We're at war. It's time to kick the enemy's ass and WIN! And I don't really care who on their side gets hurt in order for us to win! I don't want to see thousands more killed because some lunatic didn't get tucked in to his cell bunk every night with a kiss and a smile. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco So we're torturing the poor Terrorists? Boohoo! I'm ALL BROKEN UP about it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco I don't want to see thousands more killed because some lunatic didn't get tucked in to his cell bunk every night with a kiss and a smile. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Don't you get it? If we change our fundamental beliefs about human decency, then they have won. If we shred the Constitution, even just a little bit, what victory have we won? Torturing the enemy goes against who we are and why this country was created in the first place. And that's a far greater price to pay. |
In fact, it would be UN-ethical to let Americans die because we didn't want to bring a little physical or psychological harm to our enemies!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, the problem is they pick up the most random people based on heresy and "sus[icion" who they can't file any charges against, especially considering they don't have any evidence tying them to anything. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco Or do you want to lose the war, and be forced to live as A.Q. does, with no respect for human life?? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco I feel that the vast majority of the time, they'll get the right people. They're already using torture judicially...partly as a result of all of this fall-out in the past couple of years on the issue. I feel confident that they are saving the torture for those for whom there is NO DOUBT they are genuine, dangerous enemies of ours. I sleep well at night knowing that their asses are suffering so that mine might live. |
| quote: |
| Bush�s proposal would �liberalize the definition of what is torture� by amending the War Crimes Act to �permit use of hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, stress positions, �long-time standing,� prolonged sleep deprivation, and possibly waterboarding.� In his letter, Powell writes, �The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.� |
So we should all die and never try to defend ourselves, all so that we can say "we took the higher moral ground" (which I think is arguable anyway), while our enemies dance on our graves?
As has been stated in other threads, it's not about "one guy" getting tortured. It's about "one guy who has information that could save THOUSANDS of lives on our side, if we can just get him to tell us about it" being tortured. It would be WRONG not to try and get it out of him!
No country is ever perfect. I like our system of government though and I am confident that in the end, our people have FAR more freedom than we would under and A.Q. system of government, don't you?
You want us to be the friendly, fluffy government 24-7, but that's just not realistic in a war.
And our troops are already at risk. Cutting off heads and torturing them...how much worse can it get? I'd say we have nothing to lose there. The war in the Pacific in WW2 became a fight to the death, with POW's RARELY taken on either side. Sometimes, you just have to kill or be killed.
That's what this is all about.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco So we should all die and never try to defend ourselves, all so that we can say "we took the higher moral ground" (which I think is arguable anyway), while our enemies dance on our graves? |
| quote: |
No country is ever perfect. I like our system of government though and I am confident that in the end, our people have FAR more freedom than we would under and A.Q. system of government, don't you? |
| quote: |
| And our troops are already at risk. Cutting off heads and torturing them...how much worse can it get? |
| quote: |
| I'd say we have nothing to lose there. |
It really is interesting to continually hear the Bush supporters come out in favor of torture methodology. It seems that the arguments often held fall into two categories:
1. Waterboarding isn't torture, is it?
-Honestly I can't even fucking believe this is actually an argument that our country is holding. To me it's beyond unbelievable to even be debating this at all. Is this torture? Are you fucking kidding me? No, unfortunately stupid fucking ****s like Senator Bond (R-MO) have these thoughts on the matter:
| quote: |
| GWEN IFILL: Do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture? SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It�s like swimming, freestyle, backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that�s beside the point. It�s not being used. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/poli...apes_12-11.html |
| quote: |
| We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal. [�] This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. [�] In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation. http://thinkprogress.org/jag-letter-waterboarding/ |
| quote: |
| If we change our fundamental beliefs about human decency, then they have won. If we shred the Constitution, even just a little bit, what victory have we won? Torturing the enemy goes against who we are and why this country was created in the first place. And that's a far greater price to pay. |
| quote: |
| You support a war that is supposedly for the preservation of liberty, but you are not willing to die to preserve it? I find that highly odd - if you were consistent, you would acknowledge that the principles that make America what it is are far greater than any individual's life. That is the fundamental belief behind sacrificing your personal safety for the preservation of the state |
| quote: |
| Add to the fact that under duress of torture the rate of false confessions is extraordinarily high and experts attest that we can't be certain if any of the information we get from torture is actually accurate or not. The army officer who himself underwent waterboarding said the same thing. It is torture, it is unreliable, and it is something that the United States should never, ever, sink to the level of. |
| quote: |
| For their tacit support of waterboarding. In an interview, Giuliani was asked for his views on using �enhanced interrogation techniques,� including waterboarding. He responded that in a hypothetical scenario that assumed an attack, �I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of.� Prompted again on the specific use of waterboarding, he repeated �every method they could think of.� Mukasey said he found waterboarding to be �repugnant,� but he wouldn�t answer whether it amounted to torture. Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn�t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue. http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108 |
| quote: |
| In short, it doesn�t work. |
| quote: |
| IN SHORT, IT DOESN'T WORK |
And oh so strangely, new AG Michael "I can't make up my mind if waterboarding is torture" Mukasey wants Congress to delay investigating the CIA destroyed tapes case. Congressional members on both sides of the aisle ain't happy, and appear to be giving Mukasey the finger:'
| quote: |
| Delay Is Sought by Justice Dept. on C.I.A. Inquiry By DAVID JOHNSTON and MARK MAZZETTI WASHINGTON � The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the Congressional inquiry presented �significant risks� to its own preliminary investigation into the matter. The department is taking an even harder line with other Congressional committees looking into the matter, and is refusing to provide information about any role it might have played in the destruction of the videotapes. The recordings covered hundreds of hours of interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda. The Justice Department and the C.I.A.�s inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department would not comply with Congressional requests for information now because of �our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence.� Over all, the position taken by Mr. Mukasey, who took office last month, represented what Justice Department officials described as an effort to caution Congress against meddling in the tapes case and other politically explosive criminal cases. The Justice Department request was met with anger from both Republican and Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, who said the department was trying to interfere with their investigation. The committee had summoned two C.I.A. officials to testify at a hearing next week, a session that will now almost certainly be postponed. The inquiry by the House committee had been shaping up as the most aggressive investigation into the destruction of the tapes, and in a written statement on Friday, the two senior members of the panel said they were �stunned� by the Justice Department�s request. The lawmakers, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, and Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, threatened to issue subpoenas to get testimony and other information from the C.I.A. �There is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work,� they said. The committee had demanded that the C.I.A. produce all cables, memorandums and e-mail messages related to the videotapes, as well as the legal advice given to agency officials before the tapes were destroyed. Friday�s deadline passed without the arrival of any of those C.I.A. records on Capitol Hill. The inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress began after the disclosure last week that the C.I.A. had videotaped the 2002 interrogations of two Qaeda operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The tapes were destroyed in November 2005 in a decision that the current C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was not in charge of the agency at the time, has said was made �in line with the law� to protect the security of C.I.A. officers who took part in the questioning. The preliminary joint inquiry by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. is aimed at determining how the tapes were destroyed, who authorized their destruction, and whether the action violated the law. The C.I.A. did not provide the tapes to the commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks or to authorities that have sought to prosecute terrorism suspects in the courts. The Congressional inquiries, by the House and Senate intelligence committees and other panels, are largely moving on a parallel track, but are also trying to determine whether anyone in the executive branch had sought to have the tapes destroyed to eliminate possible evidence that C.I.A. officers had used outlawed interrogation techniques. The Justice Department request to the House committee was made in a letter signed by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein and John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.�s inspector general, who are leading the preliminary criminal investigation. �Our ability to obtain the most reliable and complete information would likely be jeopardized if the C.I.A. undertakes the steps necessary to respond to your requests in a comprehensive fashion at this time,� the letter said. Mr. Wainstein and Mr. Helgerson asked the committee�s �indulgence,� and promised to advise the panel on when it might resume its inquiry without jeopardizing their own investigation. But they said they could not say when the Justice Department inquiry might be completed and asked to pursue their investigation at the appropriate pace. The House Intelligence Committee has been hoping to hear testimony next week from two C.I.A. witnesses: Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former leader of the agency�s clandestine branch, who is said to have ordered the destruction of the tapes, and John A. Rizzo, the C.I.A.�s top lawyer. Mark Mansfield, a C.I.A. spokesman, declined to comment directly on the Justice Department�s letter. �Director Hayden has said the agency would cooperate fully with both the preliminary inquiry conducted by D.O.J. and the C.I.A�s inspector general and with the Congress,� he said. �That has been and certainly is the case.� The exchanges came as Republicans in the Senate moved on Friday to strip language from a bill that would have prohibited the C.I.A. from using what the White House has called �enhanced interrogation techniques,� which allow the use of methods more aggressive than those permitted by other agencies. The House has approved a measure containing the prohibition, but the Senate action, together with a veto threat from President Bush, made it unlikely that it would become law. Mr. Mukasey was rebuffing requests from the Congressional committees that oversee the Justice Department. The committees sent him letters this week demanding information about the department�s role in the destruction of the tapes and in other issues related to the possible recording of interrogations. �At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice,� Mr. Mukasey wrote in one letter. Accordingly, he went on, �I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter.� That letter was sent on Friday to Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel�s ranking Republican. Mr. Leahy said Friday that he was disappointed that �the Department of Justice declined to provide us, either publicly or in a classified setting, with any of the information Senator Specter and I have requested.� �This committee needs to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values,� Mr. Leahy added. David Johnston reported from Washington, and Mark Mazzetti from New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/w...bqDvXts0B8PxXPg |
Let's address this presumption that if we don't use methods which, by comparison to our enemies, could hardly even be called "torture" (what's a little water up the nose to having your head lopped off?), we would be taking a higher moral road;
Where exactly does this scenario end? Do we not attack back anymore when we are attacked, for example, all so that we can take the higher moral ground? How long do you think we would last as a country if we keep letting anyone and everyone who wants to, walk all over us?
A.Q. is NOT a member of the Geneva Convention! And they have set the bar for how they're going to fight us (terror tactics, by attacking CIVILIANS, as well as our military). And as stated before, because they are not a member of the Convention, they don't follow the rules when they take our people prisoner. Of all the possible people we can be fighting right now, this group is the LEAST impressed by morality! They don't care how they attack us and kill us, or whether or not they attack women, kids, innocent civilians, or the military. In fact, they PREFER attacking innocent civilians! And they would be happy if they could kill every damn one of us. And if we give them that chance, then one day, they WILL succeed!
What if it was your mom, or your wife who had to jump out of the WTC to their death? Or your child on one of those planes that hit the towers? I doubt you'd feel to benevolent towards A.Q. And given that it wasn't anyone close to you, how on earth do you guys have to audacity to tell these relatives that you want to treat the people who did this to them and their loved ones, with kit gloves?
I know the liberal media likes to hold up token examples of family members who don't support water-boarding and such, as if this small minority speaks for all of the families. But by the larger majority, you will find that they aren't speaking out against torture because they don't have the slightest problem with it. Why? Because they have experienced first hand what will happen to them and their families if we don't kill these fucking people and win!
We were already ON the "higher moral ground" here when this war began. We still are! We're not intentionally targeting women and children in Afghanistan. We're not looking to wipe out all Muslims because they don't believe in our favorite religion, etc...and we have a moral OBLIGATION to ourselves to ruthlessly stamp out these people like the bugs they are!
As for false confessions, you guys are confusing Police interrogations with military interrogations. In the military, there is plenty of corroboration going on (for the most part), as they are taking enough prisoners and getting enough intelligence out of them to cross-check stories for accuracy.
Well, you can gripe all you want about it, but the truth of the matter is that torture DOES work, enemies DO talk as a result of it, and lives get saved and wars get won as a result. It will go on, whether you like it, or know about it. I take comfort in that fact.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Who said anything about not defending ourselves? I just said we should do it with some dignity. Torture has been proven time and again to be unreliable anyhow. False confessions are normal. Which begs the question: how do you tell who is innocent and who is not? Who is deserving of torture and who is not? Should we torture anybody we pick up? Anyone we're suspicious of? How many innocent people tortured before it's not ok anymore? If we torture 200 people to find one person who legitimately knows something about al-Qaeda, was it worth it? How much does that person have to know to make it worth it? Make it reliable? Careful Donny, you're advocating a very Orwellian world. Meh, we've got a surplus on relative civil liberties and freedoms, so what does it hurt to give up a few? We'll still be better off than people who blow themselves up in markets, eh? Good enough for me! Colin Powell (and everyone else who has argued for the closure of GITMO) seem to think otherwise - for every innocent person tortured by our government, that's more free publicity for the likes of al-Qaeda and any other anti-American group. I'd say we have the whole world to lose. |
^^^If we are now chipping away at our fundamental rights and decency, when exactly do you think that it began? With this war on terror?
How about the Spanish/American War, in which we believed we were attacked in Cuba, when in fact, history now shows we were not?
How about the way we treated African Americans for decades? Or the Japanese-Americans in WW2?
I've read plenty of accounts (and talked to a few veterans personally even) from WW2 who killed POW's out-right in the field. Why? The other side was doing the same, that's why! It happened from time to time, even though over-all, we treated our POW's better than they did ours.
We are not perfect, nor have we ever been. I still think that over-all though, we've been a LOT better to our enemies and our to own people than other governments have been to their people, or to us. In my book, that says that we're still ahead of the game.
So my point is that we're not chipping away at anything by engaging in this form of so-called "torture". It's business as usual, because we have no choice. It gets results!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco |
| quote: |
It's business as usual, because we have no choice. It gets results! |
| quote: |
| History shows -- and I know a little about this -- that mistreatment of prisoners and torture is not productive. It's not productive. You don't get information that's usable from people under torture, because they just tell you what youwant to hear. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), quoted in Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Prisoner Abuse Scandal Puts McCain in Spotlight Once Again," NY Times, 5/10/2004 |
| quote: |
"Torture forces even the most innocent to lie." - Cicero |
| quote: |
| In the European Middle Ages, St. Augustine pointed out its moral perversity: "If the accused be innocent, he will undergo for an uncertain crime a certain punishment, and that . . . because it is unknown whether he committed it." The New Encyclop�dia Britannica, Microp�dia, 15th edition, 2002 |
| quote: |
| Even milder torture . . . can result in false confessions, that is, information that is flat-out inaccurate. Steven Welsh, Center for Defense Information, quoted in Brad Knickerbocker, "Can torture be justified?" Christian Science Monitor, 5/19/2004 |
| quote: |
| As for those who do have something to say, we know very well that they do not talk. All of them, or nearly all of them. . . . One of the officers commented . . . . "For ten years, fifteen years, they all have had the same idea: if taken they must not talk, There is nothing we can do about it." . . . These tortures bring a poor return: the Germans themselves ended by realising this in 1944; torture costs human lives but does not save them. Jean-Paul Sartre, Introduction to Henri Alleg, The Question, 1958 |
| quote: |
| Most of these prisoners have been warned to expect brutality. But if you say, "I'm your friend," they don't know how to react. Their orders don't cover this, so being humane is much more effective. A U.S. paramilitary expert in Saigon, quoted in William Tuohy, "A Big 'Dirty Little War'," NY Times Magazine, 11/28/1965 |
| quote: |
| There are better ways of getting information from prisoners than torture. Sure . . . the guy will talk. But you never know whether the information is accurate. If I were being tortured, I'd whip out so much stuff it would take them six months to check it. A U.S. specialist in Saigon, quoted in William Touhy, "A Big 'Dirty Little War'," NY Times Magazine, 11/28/1965 |
| quote: |
| Sanctioned abuse is deeply corrosive -- just ask the French, who are still seeking to eradicate the stain on their honor that resulted from the deliberate use of torture in Algeria. French soldiers had been tortured in Vietnam, in some cases revealing valuable information to their Vietminh captors. Senior French officers decided that the same tactics might work for them. As Alistair Horne put it in "A Savage War of Peace," use of torture may have won the battle of Algiers for the French, but it cost them Algeria. Donald P. Gregg, "Fight Fire With Compassion," NY Times Op Ed, 6/10/2004 |
| quote: |
| Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Department of the Army, FM 34-52, Chapter 1. INTERROGATION AND THE INTERROGATOR. Principles of Interrogation: Prohibition against use of force, May 8, 1987 |
| quote: |
| American interrogators working in Iraq have obtained as much as 50 percent more high-value intelligence since a series of coercive practices . . . were banned [in May]. . . . Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, said that . . . "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence." Dexter Filkins, "General Says Less Coercion of Captives Yields Better Data," NY Times, 9/7/2004 |
| quote: |
| A new interrogation system established in April contains several layers of oversight and focuses on establishing a rapport between interrogators and prisoners, instead of employing coercive tactics. "You would be surprised at how far a can of orange soda would go," said Lt. Col. Mark Costello, who oversees interrogations at Abu Ghraib. Norimitsu Onishi, "Transforming a Prison, With U.S. Image in Mind," NY Times, 9/16/2004 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco Let's address this presumption that if we don't use methods which, by comparison to our enemies, could hardly even be called "torture" (what's a little water up the nose to having your head lopped off?), we would be taking a higher moral road; |
| quote: |
| Where exactly does this scenario end? |
| quote: |
| Do we not attack back anymore when we are attacked, for example, all so that we can take the higher moral ground? How long do you think we would last as a country if we keep letting anyone and everyone who wants to, walk all over us? |
| quote: |
| A.Q. is NOT a member of the Geneva Convention! |
| quote: |
| And they have set the bar for how they're going to fight us (terror tactics, by attacking CIVILIANS, as well as our military). |
| quote: |
| And as stated before, because they are not a member of the Convention, |
| quote: |
| they don't follow the rules when they take our people prisoner. |
| quote: |
| Of all the possible people we can be fighting right now, this group is the LEAST impressed by morality! |
| quote: |
| They don't care how they attack us and kill us, or whether or not they attack women, kids, innocent civilians, or the military. In fact, they PREFER attacking innocent civilians! And they would be happy if they could kill every damn one of us. And if we give them that chance, then one day, they WILL succeed! |
| quote: |
| What if it was your mom, or your wife who had to jump out of the WTC to their death? Or your child on one of those planes that hit the towers? I doubt you'd feel to benevolent towards A.Q. And given that it wasn't anyone close to you, how on earth do you guys have to audacity to tell these relatives that you want to treat the people who did this to them and their loved ones, with kit gloves? |
| quote: |
| I know the liberal media likes to hold up token examples of family members who don't support water-boarding and such, as if this small minority speaks for all of the families. But by the larger majority, you will find that they aren't speaking out against torture because they don't have the slightest problem with it. Why? Because they have experienced first hand what will happen to them and their families if we don't kill these fucking people and win! |
| quote: |
| We were already ON the "higher moral ground" here when this war began. We still are! We're not intentionally targeting women and children in Afghanistan. |
| quote: |
| As for false confessions, you guys are confusing Police interrogations with military interrogations. In the military, there is plenty of corroboration going on (for the most part), as they are taking enough prisoners and getting enough intelligence out of them to cross-check stories for accuracy. |
| quote: |
| Well, you can gripe all you want about it, but the truth of the matter is that torture DOES work, enemies DO talk as a result of it, and lives get saved and wars get won as a result. It will go on, whether you like it, or know about it. I take comfort in that fact. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 tell me the difference between us and them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Which is why the Army Field manual specifically prohibits waterboarding: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo ...were in the business and process of mass murder for Allah (praise be unto him). we are in the business and process of preventing that from happening. people are afraid to make that distinction for whatever reasons, i'm sure there is a million of them, but make no mistake there IS a distinction... ...to believe there is no distinction, THAT IMO IS UN-AMERICAN! all the other "American way" righteous indignation can take a back seat |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.