OT We do not torture

I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US forces?

Did we put an eye out? Beat him black and blue? Put him on the rack?, cut a off a finger, arm, leg or head off? Castrate him? Brand, whip, crush? Drag him behind a humvee until dead?

How about putting him in ropes like McCain and the other POW's from Vietnam?

Did we starve him? Expose him to disease? Did we bring his family to Gitmo and torture them in front of him.

Got a bit cold did he? How cold? How long, any tissue damage? I froze my arse off today working on my car outside.

Did we torture him or just give him a crappy day, a day that those he helped kill will never have again be it good or bad?

Maybe we should have used Stalin's advice, no man, no problem and just put him in a trench with a round in his head to tell no tales? That is the way of those that actually torture people.

Wes

off a finger,

humvee until

arse off today

in a trench

actually torture

As far as I understand the article, Qahtani's health was actually wrecked by his treatment.

He seems to be a bad guy, if I am to believe the Bush administration, but good or bad, he was tortured anyway. Maybe Bush should have said "we torture bad people only".

As for Stalin, sleep deprivation was his favorite form of torture. It is very effective, although time consuming. Gouging eyes out is more of a form of sadism, rather than an interrogation tactic.

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage? Cheers,

Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

off a finger,

humvee until

arse off today

in a trench

actually torture

What if it was you, Wes?

Or your brother?

Or your father?

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps, prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn it? Cheers,

Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Or Wen Ho Lee?

Wes

If you want to put it in those terms, the yes, absolutely.

Like it or not, the idea of stopping someone from committing a crime

- before he actually does it - it illegal by our laws.

It's called prior restraint.

Bruce, I've been there.

Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969

I'm taking "the high moral ground" because it's the right path.

Yes I would.

Problem is, torture IS unreliable. People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop it.

And other people will tell you anything to get away with it.

Step through the looking glass - it's all smoke and mirrors.

Your wife and family was in Vietnam?

Again, that is not the question.

I am aware that physical torture is often unproductive, since as you say, when they are beating on you will say anything to stop it.

On the other hand it has and did work in some/many instances. We had a Psy-war airplane shot down in N. Korea and the crew captured. When they were repatriated they stated that they had "talked" due to daily beatings over a period of months.

My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?

Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this nature occur"?

Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11.... Cheers,

Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

You are assuming the absence of other prevention methods. Good intelligence and investigative law enforcement are what prevent crimes of this nature. Every single instance, for example, of prevention in the CONUS since 9-11 has been the result of coordinated intelligence collection and good old fashioned police work.

Homeland Security is something of a c*ck up. You can't give unfettered power to an enforcement agency. America should have followed the British model. The effort undertaken by the States, individually but now connectedly, and known as "Fusion Centers" is what has made the difference. They have absolutely zero enforcement power but they collect and archive an incredible amount of data in a searchable format. They are an archive, for instance, of every call or report made to or by a public agency in the areas they serve. This information is then entered, shared and analyzed.The tools at hand to conduct such analysis are truly amazing and get better every day. One of the advantages of this approach is that there is little chance for "mischief", if you take my meaning.

In other words, the dots get connected. That's what works, even in the face of initial resistance at the federal level.

Hardly. Not only had it been thought of, it had been a genuine concern and was outlined in a PDB on 8-12.

And to you. One final thought. A famous American once said "Give me liberty or give me death". What he meant wasn't that he'd trade a modicum of freedom to save his own skin. That's what cowards do - betray their principals out of hand. He meant he'd rather go down fighting, to the death if it came to that, than do so. America is either a country of men or of laws.

JC

This is called a "ticking bomb" concept. The question is, if there is a ticking bomb set to explode, and you know it is out there but now where exactly, and you caught a terrorist who would not talk, would you torture him?

That situation has never practically been replicated.

So this argument is used by Rush Limbaugh, "neocons" and other assorted liars to justify torturing people in other circumstances. This particular terrorist mentioned in WP article is a good example. He was not aware of a ticking bomb. At the worst, he wanted to be on one of the flights hijacked on 9/11. By the time he was captured, he was not aware of any ticking bombs, and yet was tortured anyway.

I take full moral responsibility for my opinions.

I don't believe that anyone will ever know as Homeland has publicized the fact that they have prevented several cases of terrorism - but they are too secret to tell the people about.

Certainly good old fashioned police work didn't work too well in the lead up to 9/11. According to the newspapers the FBI was alerted to "somebody" taking flight lessons that looked funny, and nobody paid any attention to it.

The CIA was tasked with this responsibility for foreign activity and, I assume, the FBI for domestic. Apparently it didn't work.

And a little research shows that old Patrick was giving a rabble rousing speech in an attempt to convince the state of Virginia to support the revolution with troops. He was appointed as a colonel in the Virginia Militia but seemed to have been in only one action, The Gunpowder Affair, which ended in a face off with no fighting. Although his speech expressed a noble sentiment he did not serve as a fighting officer during the revolution.

Don't get started on the Homeland people. If I remember the justification for the Central intelligence Agency was to coordinate intelligence activities among the various government agencies. Now, apparently someone thinks it didn't work so they form a new agency. Cheers,

Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Extreme cases make bad policy.

-- Ed Huntress

I'd like to know exactly what they did to him. You and I don't know and we can't be sure his health issues are a result of whatever harsh treatment was applied.

You do understand the concept of 'spin'? Even when it comes from a side you might tend to agree with on certain issues?

Wes

Apparently, the Republican judge appointed by the Bush administration, thinks that these health issues are a result of him being tortured.

I think that the article is very clear in referring to words of Susan Crawford.

I used to vote Republican, before they showed their true nature under the Bush administration.

That legislation had to come out of the House since it was spending. Nancy Pelosi runs that shop. Then to be enacted into law, the Senate had to vote for it. Harry Reid runs that shop. Bush gets to sign or reject it.

If you don't like the disclosure rules, blame the correct people.

Now why would things be different? The same legislators are passing that legislation.

Explain your logic path on your statements. I can not follow it.

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Hi Bruce, We have corresponded before in this and other groups, so I know you are not a fool.

But drivel like that is more apropos of Gunner teasing Bird Brain than what I have come to expect from you.

So, politely asked, knock it off, ok?

Today's news.

Skip down to the bottom line below?

I was not one of the ones involved in it back then. I won't condone it today.

If it was illegal then, in a place as evil as that place was, then why is it being allowed today - in the "free world" by our own so called leaders?

For the full story...

Waterboarding, a harsh interrogation technique which simulates drowning, has drawn criticism from lawmakers. Officials within the Bush administration have acknowledged that the CIA has used the method on terror detainees after the 9/11 attacks, but insisted that it is not torture.

Responding to a question about waterboarding from committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Holder said, "I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture."

Holder, who has been a vocal critic of the administration's policies in the war on terror, explained his stance further, saying, "If you look at the history of the use of that technique used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes.

We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam."

change

Jesus! Lets not get started on that subject.

And to think that after everyone in the world has "proved" that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction no one has moved to turf the guy out of office... and poor old Bill only got his end in and what a hullabaloo. I guess that killing many is more acceptable then screwing one....... By God, the Thais are right, you Farang are strange people. Cheers,

Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)