Let’s behave as if we are better than they are.
I don’t know the proper nomenclature for the difference between pushing bamboo strips under ones fingernails or sleep deprivation if there is a difference in the eyes of the torturer.
I do not advocate torture and I see the views expressed in this thread as being from the heart, notably yours Zoe. I remember threads where you spoke about that day, and I wouldn’t wish that on my worse enemy or any terrorist.
My primal self says burn’em all…my intellectual self says, interrogate without physical or emothional termoil.
I knew a gentleman who was a Japanese POW during WWII. All I remember about what he went through was that they had driven bamboo shoots under his fingernails and also driven some kind of spikes into his legs. They may have been bamboo also.
I didn’t know him until about twelve years later. He was very thin and had trouble walking. He looked nervous, dark and apprehensive. I noticed these characteristics before I knew that he had been a POW. He never recovered and remained frail until his death in his forties, I think.
we were specifically warned about the “good cop-bad cop” routine. In addition we were warned about casual conversation.
We were told that we would be knocked around a bit, not fed, short on water, kept on the move, etc. Then we would be left in a room and after a while a soft spoken officer would come. He would apologize for any hard treatment and scornfully dismiss those who had us before as crude peasants. Then he would probably start to talk about our outfit; ask about the welfare for squadron and group commanders by name. The whole idea was to get across the idea that they already knew all there was to know and a little conversation couldn’t hurt a bit.
Most intelligence is not gathered in huge breakthroughs but is garnered in bits and pieces from various sources, then assembled by specialists in the particular unit, area of expertise, etc.
Thank you for that
Certainly the Nazis weren’t morally incapable of brutality if they thought it was the efficient way to go. Yet, they chose otherwise.
Perhaps there’re some lessons to be learned from history yet.
Guerillas HAVE been defeated, terrorists HAVE been stopped and it couldn’t have been done without serious measures. I’m not weighing in on if it’s right or not, but I will argue it can work. I know of no insurgency that has been defeated without ruthlessness. If anyone knows of one, enlighten me.
Right. But keeping a suspect or detainee somewhat off-balance emotionally needn’t be so extreme. The mere fact of his imprisonment is emotionally unsettling to a considerable degree all by itself, and that fact can be exploited to produce information.
I trust you see no problem with this - indeed, it is the basis of many a plea bargain and witness deal in our civilian justice system.
Other things may be employed - small things like prison transfers or even cellblock transfers can be tremendously unsettling to a prisoner whose world has become constrained to a tremendous degree. These things can be exploited as well, and they don’t come anywhere close to abusive treatment in my mind.
So yes, I support measures like these and others as well. And the members of the board familiar with law enforcement interrogation techniques firsthand (I am not) would likely agree.
See, the last guy we tortured told us that this guy really knows a lot about terrorist plans. So, obviously, we gotta torture him.
Tris
Are you taking the argumentum ad antiquitatem tack?
There is no tactical advantage in being humane and decent. If you’re gonna wear the white hat, you better know that up front.
Of course there is. Most obviously, people are rather more likely to surrender instead of fighting to the death. And the strategic advantages of being humane and decent are huge. The idea that ruthlessness is more effective is a myth. There are some tactical advantages, yes, but in the long run ruthlessness is crippling.
Not really. I think you’ll find that since the amount of torture and indescriminate murder has lessened in Iraq, the amount of unrest has increased.
And what makes you think that much of that “unrest” wasn’t caused by that torture and indiscriminate murder ? And what makes you think that it’s lessened; or more importantly for your question, that the Iraqi’s think that it’s lessened ?
If you read Fiasco, you’ll see that is exactly what happened. The areas with the tough guys, the troops who took the family of suspects as hostages, who rounded up anyone they could, had big problems. Petraeus, to give him credit, took it easy, and had the least amount of insurgency.
So, whats the benefit when torture might (just might) stop one attack and inspire a dozen more?
Voyager
Or, alternatively, it might stop a dozen more attacks. You can argue that one either way.
Regards
Testy
That I’m aware, unrest in the area is an issue of ethnic and religious prejudices. Given that torture has been something that’s been practiced, most likely, regularly since the dawn of history in the area without break, it makes little sense to ascribe to it all the new problems with the area.
In that they feel safe to thwart us, principally. Though admittedly, that’s proving the thesis with the thesis itself. But when you look at, for instance, the crime growth in the US since cameras were placed in police cars and interrogation rooms and the (in some places) inadmissability of confessions into court, etc.; the prevalence of music sharing versus the lack of people selling copied CDs on street corners; or by simple logic; it makes sense that people are more likely to break the law when they think they can get away with it.
Except that people always get angrier when outsiders do such things. And then there’s the fact that we have a reputation for being indiscriminate. With Saddam, you could usually keep your head down and stay out of trouble.
And what makes you think that the torturers and murderers of the past weren’t hated, themselves ? Do you think Saddam had all those bodyguards and doubles for no reason ?
American dominated Iraq has, if anything, fewer human rights than Saddam’s Iraq.
:rolleyes: “Indiscriminate murder” and torture have nothing to do with people getting away with anything. We are notorious from not caring about our victim’s innocence or guilt. Both in Iraq, and in America. It just makes things worse, because so many people simply don’t believe that we are punishing people for any reason beyond bigotry, greed, and sadism.
And you are being extremely foolish if you don’t think that torture and murder are going to produce a desire for revenge.
Indeed, and as said, I believe that Bush Co. are stupid in their handling of the war.
Saying that Hussein practiced more “indiscriminate” murder was a mis-statement on my part. He was very particular, but also very wide in his particulars. That is to say, he was methodical and strategic in his use of ruthless means. Beyond the simple handicap of being outsiders, we’ve been non-methodical and unstrategic in our bumbling attempts at being a tyrant. We’ve probably tortured and (willfully) murdered fewer people than Hussein, though.
The ability to get away with things is a factor in unrest. But being a bastard–as Voyager points out–is entirely possible to be entirely ineffective. If person A smashes a window but has ran away to the next town by the time I get there and so I beat up person B, that does nothing whatsoever to deter person A and his friends.
Indeed, when referring to maltreatment of prisoners he wrote:
And for Phlosphr and his talk of mild torture being OK, historical legal precedents suggest otherwise. At the end of the Second World War, several Germans were convicted of torturing Norwegian resistance members and were sentenced to death. They appealed the death sentence, arguing That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement. The argument was rejected and they were executed. Waterboarding as practised by the current US military was also found to be torture at the Ravensbruck trial and the accused similarly sentenced to death.
Give us time and we’ll catch up, and we’ll have less to show from it than Hussein.
And ‘willfullness’ matters not at all. No one cares except the apologists.