Here’s the thing. When we captured guys before, and they saw we weren’t the monsters they’d been led to believe we were, they wanted to help us. Now, thanks to that stupid fucking bounty policy, we’re capturing innocent people, putting them in tremendous pain, and making them want to get revenge. Torture is unreliable, completely unamerican, and the policies you’re going to such great lengths to defend are making every single American in the world less safe.
Yes it fucking well will, because that’s what everybody (including us) has been doing for decades, excepting countries like Syria and such. You want to get information from a hostage? Buddy up to him. Make him feel like you’re on his side, and nobody else is. Make him trust you, and want to help you. That works far, far better than pouring water down his throat.
It honestly makes me sick that you say that this sort of thing isn’t really torture, only racks and thumbscrews and knives and branding irons are torture.
These techniques were developed in the Soviet Gulags. The rack is medieval torture technology and wholly unnecessary. You don’t need a rack to inflict unbearable suffering on someone. Sleep deprivation, starvation, thirst, cold, heat, sensory deprivation, social deprivation, or being force into one position for hours or days will cause unbearable suffering. If you don’t believe me, then stand with your arm outstretched for a few minutes. Pretty soon your arm will get tired. Now stand for a few more minutes. Now your arm starts to hurt. Stand for a few more minutes. Now your arm is in agony.
This is a simple torture technique. It is torture because it causes agony, even without knives and red hot irons. What makes it torture is not the specific method of creating agony, what makes it torture is the agony. All I have to do to create agony is to restrain you in an uncomfortable position and leave you there for hours and hours.
And you ignore the indisputable fact that interrogators find that making prisoners comfortable and giving them a cheese sandwich and chatting with them about their family is a highly effective technique. You say we have to trust the interrogators on the ground who know what’s what, but you don’t. You don’t trust the interrogators who say torture is counterproductive, you only trust the Stalinists.
That is hardly at issue. Bringing it up as if it were is, as I said, evasive.
Ah, the “bad apple” excuse, conveniently ignoring all the paperwork right from the top about the legality of torture. Nope, it had to have been just a few rogue interrogators.
Only if we let the worldview you espouse, the one of justifying ignorance and excusing immorality, continue to influence our behavior. It doesn’t have to be that way and hasn’t always.
Apparently you had a thought there.
It lets you understand their motivations so you can address them in some other way short of killing them first. That DOES make them less dangerous. Going right from “They resent what we’re doing” to “They hate us” to “They want us dead” to “We have to stop them by whatever means necessary”, without stopping for thought and a reality check at any of those steps, makes you part of the problem, not the solution. Look up “projection” sometime.
Quite a heap of straw you’ve got piled up there. :rolleyes:
We don’t have the RESOURCES to instill fear, but our attempts to do so anyway have destroyed both our political capital and our respect. You got it exactly backwards there.
Well said. Utterly at odds with the rest of what you’ve said, but well said anyway.
Does that mean you’re not going to specify just who “they” constitutes, in your usage? That kinda puts a stopper on any useful further discussion about how to handle “them”, ya know.
If only your curt dismissals of anything we know from history, from psychology, from political science, and even from morality were consistent with that confident assertion.
What you’ve done is *depersonalize *the enemy, not only by failing to recognize “them” as human but by failing even to *identify *them! Is that really different from despising, well, whoever “they” are?
But you’re not an Arab. You don’t share the Arab world’s views of public nudity and homosexuality. Do you think the people we did that to see it as significantly different from torture? Is the effect on the minds we are (allegedly) trying to win over really any different?
I damn well hope so. What we already know about what was done in our names is outrageous enough.
Garbage. Plenty of people hate us because of what we have done to them, or their friends, or their relatives.
Again, garbage. Plenty of people hate us for reasons that have nothing at all to do with religion. And by saying that things like torture and conquest don’t make people hate us more, you ARE putting all foreigners in the category of “enemy”. You simply want to declare everyone opposed to us a religious fanatic, and pretend that foreigners are so inhuman that slaughter and torture doesn’t affect their opinions or behavior.
And others held candlelight vigils, yes even in “evil” nations like Iran.
And so what ? You’ve just invented a justification to murder or torture anyone, anywhere. Do you think no one in Canada or Britain hates us ? Do you think no one in America hates America ?
Are you brain damaged ? In a thread full of people angry at you for promoting something as evil as torture, you can’t figure out what I mean ? You WANT America to torture and massacre; of COURSE your version of America should be destroyed.
As I recall, the guy with the hood had massive head injuries and is now dead.
Once again, garbage. The successful interrogaters DON’T torture people.
And your argument also means that we don’t DESERVE the intel you are so hot for. A force that acts as you describe is one that deserves to be slaughtered, not to win.
Substantiate that, please Trihs.
I’m just poking my head in here to say that while I often find Der Trihs’s posts to be rather beyond the pale, on this issue, I think his tone is the correct one. I have nothing but contempt for all involved in the torture program, and if any good might come of the whole debacle, I hope it to be that the punishment they receive is severe enough to serve as an example for all eternity that we don’t fucking put up with that.
“As I recall” means just that. I read years ago that the guy in the hood had been dead for some time; that the hood concealed major head injuries. I certainly can’t find a link at this late date to one atrocity among many.
And how many of them acted on it?
Perhaps, so? I’m not saying that torture doesn’t make “them” hate us more. It does. I’m abso-mother-fucking-lutely NOT doing that. I declare a person or group an enemy when they declare themselves to be MY enemy. I have no beef whatsover with the average Iraqi/Iranian/whoever. I have a problem with people like AQ. I don’t pretend anything of the sort, I know that a stance for “torture” during military interrogations makes us very unpopular and that stance absolutely has an affect. I just don’t believe that tough interrogations that some people would consider torture can go away 100%. That’s not realistic. I wish it were, I wish the bad people didn’t have to do bad things, but they do.
I’m sure. I didn’t see that, but ok. When did I call Iran evil? I don’t think my mouth can hold anymore of your words.
Have I? Because If someone from Britian, Canada or even an American does what was done here on 9/11, and they aren’t giving up what they know, I think tough interoogations are called for. Sorry. It makes you sick, but killing almost 3000 innocent people makes me sick.
No, I was asking if you meant ‘an American’ or America. I asked for a typographical correction not your wild-eyed dissertation on the destruction of America. But thanks.
[QUOTEDer Trihs]
As I recall, the guy with the hood had massive head injuries and is now dead.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know, is he?
You’re right. Sometimes the threat alone will do what you need. I’ve never been in one of those interrogations where this type of thing was even close to necessary, but I lied, cajoled, threatened, and did everything within the law to get that confession or information. The problem becomes when you’re talking to people with nothing to lose. As an AQ member, perhaps I have no family, no home, no money, no nothing, just a jihad and all of my anger. As an interrogator, what can I lie to you about? What can I hold over your head to get you to confess? I can’t threaten you with anything because you have nothing to lose. My only mechanism is the threat of physical pain. I’m not condoning the threat of “torture” for every one every time, but there are times when it can work.
You may well be right, but that’s never, ever, ever how it’s worked out.
Look. I don’t believe in torture as a rule, but I also don’t believe that it should be ruled out in the most extreme of cases. The ticking time bomb scenario is one I can think of right off. Further, I think that Obama’s release of the memos is a smoke screen and that we’re doing the same shit we always did, but the guys doing it are underground and Obama is now, with this release, clear of any blame should those guys get caught, which is the only thing I tried to say in the first place.
But that simply isn’t the case, given the testimony we’ve already had from the very interrrogators who examined Abu Zubaydah. They got information from him by the simple expedience of empathetic and decent treatment. So, unless you think they are lying, that just isn’t so.
And if any significant part of your argument rests on that premise, its in deep kim chee.
Plenty. The majority of the “foreign fighters” attacking us in Iraq were radicalized by our attack on Iraq, for example.
You support torture, and attempting to terrorize the population of apparently the entire planet into submission to us, so yes you DO “have a beef with them.”
No, they don’t. That’s just an excuse for us indulging in sadism. We torture out of cruelty and incompetence, not because it’s “necessary”.
We’ve demonstrated in Iraq that we are far worse, far crueler and more destructive. How much innocent blood do we get to spill before we qualify as the bad guys ? 3000 is nothing in comparison to what we have done.
Prove it.
Not that it matters. Torture is evil; if you you torture you should be imprisoned for life, or killed. No excuse is good enough; by torturing you make yourself vermin.
Oh, please. Barbarism like torture is a great way of rallying the enemy, and creating new ones. Why do you think people spread atrocity stories about their enemies ? Atrocity and slaughter have a long history of producing successful counterattacks and revolutions. “Remember the Alamo” ring a bell ? How’d that work out for Mexico ?
I think this is probably the best argument that Obama really has ended the torture program. I think he’s smart enough to know the royal shitstorm that’d be released, or at least the total negation of any goodwil he builds, if it ever comes out that he’s lying about this.
Maybe I’m just being optimistic, 'cause I don’t really want to believe that he’s a war criminal as well.
Well said. It’s simply wrong. I damn sure don’t want the government doing any such thing “for my safety”. I think there should be full on investigations and criminal proceedings against those who did the torturing, AND those who gave the orders and tried to “legitimize” it. That includes the high level officials. Any and all of them regardless of rank, title, or level of authority. If it goes all the way up to the White House so be it. Get it all out in the open. Drop all the secrecy. Get rid of the round-about verbage used to “justify” it.
We Americans like to pretend we are the good guys. If we want to talk the talk, we need to walk the walk.
Okay, here’s the thing, Trihs: waterj2 is right; you’re generally on what I consider to be the right side in this issue. But the history of your tone and your often over-the-top rhetoric tend to conspire to make you a somewhat problematic ally. I don’t consider you to be an unalloyed asset to our side, and inaccuracy on your part (or even, unfair as it is, vagueness) opens you up to attack from the people who are wrong. The fact that the attacks may be specious does not prevent them from being significant distractions, and when this happens, you tend to go from being an asset toward being a liability. Consequently, when you wish to make an assertion, my personal preference is that you make it bullet-proof, and if the best you can do is an “as I recall,” your value to us is better served by leaving it out, than by putting it in.
Just as a f’rinstance, are we talking about the same “guy in the hood”? I’m really only aware of one photograph from Abu Graihb that is iconic enough to allow the subject to be described as “the guy in the hood”. The one I think of is this fella, here (feel free to find another one if I’m thinking of the wrong “guy in the hood”). Now, I’m not in a position to comment on the probability of him having severe head injuries under that hood, it doesn’t really look, based on his pose, as if he’d been dead for quite some time at the time the photo was taken. Now, I did find a likely identity for the subject: Satar Jabar. While there are no cites readily available to establish his current condition on the alive-dead spectrum, what there is doesn’t exactly portend that he was at death’s door, either (he was sufficiently robust to emerge from the ordeal an unspecified amount of time later and dispute the Army’s account of the conditions present during the incident).
Let’s be clear: I’m glad that you take the correct view of the wrongness of torture, and of the wrongness of the Bush administration (or any administration, anywhere, any time) in attempting to facilitate it. I’m happy that you’re passionate about it. I’m perfectly content to allow you to be a firebrand about it. But please don’t forget that firebrands get to back up their assertions without taking “as I recall” shortcuts. It’s extra work, but it’s worth it, especially to the folks who share your basic position.