enhanced interrogation techniques "vs" torture

[MayheM]

With the release of the meoms on the interigation practices of the Bush administration being released I am curious to hear the opinions of others on here. The two main sides of the debate are:

a. What was done was in the best intrest of the security of the US and the information gotten from the techniques used kept this country safe.

b. What was done was in fact torture and underminds what this nation stands for.

I for one can see both sides. On one hand I see how some can say it it unamerican to use a practice like waterboarding to gain information is wrong and goes against the very principals we as a country try to protect; but I can also see how people can say how gaining information in any way possible to protect innocent people is more important that following idealistic principals.

It is my understanding that those who recieved this treatment where in fact admitedly guilty of the crimes they where being detained for. Some even bosted about what they had either done or helped to plan. It is also my understanding that the techniques used where carefully monitored and a doctor was present for things such as waterboarding. As far as I am concerned if we recieved any information from these interigations that saved lives they where not only warrented but they where in fact effective in doing what they where meant to do.

Either way, I feel it was a big mistake to release these memos letting our enemies know that the techniques which where used where meant only as a threat and would never lead to and perminant or true harm. This knowlege gives them an advantage since the fear of what could happen if captured is no longer present. Ultimately it weakens our security.

At least that is how I see it... What say you?

[theNotSoNinja]

Either way, I feel it was a big mistake to release these memos letting our enemies know that the techniques which where used where meant only as a threat and would never lead to and perminant or true harm. This knowlege gives them an advantage since the fear of what could happen if captured is no longer present. Ultimately it weakens our security.

I'm not sure you would feel that way should you be the subject of such cruel and inhumane torture, I reckon someone subject to that kind of abuse is going to be pretty afraid.

[Spas12]

imo opinion torture should be fully legalized by the Geneva Convention only on those detainees who have been proven for acts of terrorism through fair due process. For those detainees who have not been proven guilty, which are quite a lot, torture should not be used on them. But torture is a faster way to get information to help keep not just the US safe but the entire world, so im kinda on the fence with this controversy though.

[dissonance]

a. What was done was in the best intrest of the security of the US and the information gotten from the techniques used kept this country safe.

Really?

[Mr-Jigsaw]

It's interesting, the White House was originally going to release a number of photos with detainees and their captors, supposedly with an amount of mistreatment in them, but just the other day the president redacted his statement and is now withholding the pictures. It seems like he has had to make a few compromises since getting in office, and I'm glad he made this decision. I'm sure that a number of his supporters must be angry though.

I'm not sure you would feel that way should you be the subject of such cruel and inhumane torture

Compared to what can be done, I'm not sure if we can classify waterboarding as that cruel when it comes to torture, if you even decide to call it that. I'm sure there are even worse methods out there, that the agency did not employ.

[MayheM]

Yeah water boarding and things like that when you consider the limitations put on them while using these techniques is not even close to torture. For instance they could not water board someone for more that 45 seconds. So, I would say gouging someone’s eyes out or sticking them with the red hot poker, those are torture but not water boarding or any of the other techniques used. One of the things some are saying was torture was them putting a bug in the cell of one guy. The bug used was apparently a caterpillar.

I am also glad he Obama changed his mind on this one. Though I have to say, when he recanted and said he did not want them released he said it would compromise the safety of our soldiers. I can not help but to think he should have thought of that when the idea of releasing them first came up. Though I do commend him on making the right call in the end.

As for keeping the country safe, it remains to be seen but there are supposidly documents that list all of the information gained from these techniques which have conveniantly not been released. But to be honest if one life was saved by these interigations i feel it was worth it.

[Spike]

People can confess things that he has never done just to stop beeing tortured. That's why torture fails

[MayheM]

But some of these people when asked in normal interigations bosted and said things like "You will soon see" Are we then to do nothing and wait for it to happen or do everything in our power to try and get the information. Besides, you are going on the asumption these are in fact torture...

I personally love when people argue thier point by saying things like

theNotSoNinja wrote:
I'm not sure you would feel that way should you be the subject of such cruel and inhumane torture

Because I do not do things to put myself in those kinds of situations. I do not commit acts of terrorism, I do not commit crimes, etc... I am not saying by any means that I am perfect but I would never be subject to such things because I do not put myself in situations which would allow me to recieve such treatment.

[Kremator]

I'm pretty sure some people who didn't commit anything was subjected to torture as well.

[coder0xff]

I used to work in an Army unit with interrogators and communications interception (HUMINT and SIGINT). Most people who are interrogated don't offer much resistance if they are approached the correct way. The culture their dealing with is far different from here. You can gain someones respect (and often trust) simply by offering them a warm, authentic greeting and asking them how they are, showing interest in who they are and what they have to say. In my experience, interrogators know what their doing, and if they were water boarding someone, it's because there was information to be had.

I'm not advocating or denouncing what happened - I typically avoid these conversations - but I figured the insight might be valuable to you who do.

[1447]

People can confess things that he has never done just to stop beeing tortured. That's why torture fails

Pretty much this.

[Sathor]

As others said, torture makes you confess. Anything. Which doesn't help. Torture makes you step down to something lower than an animal. How can you preach freedom and human rights if you fight with means like that. You can't. Nobody will believe you. And they will fight you, because you are no better than they are.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

As others said, torture makes you confess. Anything.

I'm pretty sure the agency hires some of the best psychologists and professionals this nation has to offer. I love it when lay people think they know more than the professionals. I'm sure they know what they're doing. Besides, the intel they gathered amounted to real successes, like stopping other plots. These terrorists were captured for intelligence gathering and protection from further attacks. The agency doesn't want confessions, they want answers and further knowledge to stop other attacks.

And we have to consider that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were not the first thing they tried. That is dumb. I'm sure they interrogated them normally for a while, until they proved stubborn yet brazen, and then moved on when the agents felt they had due suspicion of further knowledge.

Torture makes you step down to something lower than an animal. How can you preach freedom and human rights if you fight with means like that. You can't. Nobody will believe you. And they will fight you, because you are no better than they are.

Moral equivalency is a false bastion. We are better than them. The terrorists care nothing for human life, for human rights. When our soldiers, contractors, reporters, and civilians get captured, they are executed. They drew first blood, not us. Our actions are justified. My conscience is clear, as it should be.

[dragonfliet]

It's important to note for this conversation that only 3 people were waterboarded. THREE. Not lots of people, not even a handful. These were three people that admitted to a number of acts previous to the torture and Cheney is arguing that these methods kept America safer (so much as asking the CIA to declassify documents to that effect).

This is an important note because people hear the word torture and think automatically that everyone was subjected to interrogation 24 and BSG style.

Now, ignoring the absolute disgrace that was Abu Ghraib, the other forms of so-called advanced interrogations was the typical sleep deprivation by means of bright lights, loud music and multiple questionings. I would argue that such methods need be kept within bounds, but if done so, they aren't torture.

All that being said, I think it's important that the United States not resort to methods such as waterboarding and that all those directly associated with such decisions should be prosecuted. We prosecuted those who did it to us in WWII for a reason. It is inhumane and criminal. There are far better, more effective ways of getting information that don't drag humanity and our country through the mud.

I think that releasing the memos is an important step in regaining respect in the world and it is going to take time but these sorts of steps will end up being positive. It is a shame that we aren't prosecuting the individuals involved in this, however.

~Jason

[Dionysos]

As others said, torture makes you confess. Anything.

I'm pretty sure the agency hires some of the best psychologists and professionals this nation has to offer. I love it when lay people think they know more than the professionals. I'm sure they know what they're doing. Besides, the intel they gathered amounted to real successes, like stopping other plots. These terrorists were captured for intelligence gathering and protection from further attacks. The agency doesn't want confessions, they want answers and further knowledge to stop other attacks.

And we have to consider that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were not the first thing they tried. That is dumb. I'm sure they interrogated them normally for a while, until they proved stubborn yet brazen, and then moved on when the agents felt they had due suspicion of further knowledge.

Torture makes you step down to something lower than an animal. How can you preach freedom and human rights if you fight with means like that. You can't. Nobody will believe you. And they will fight you, because you are no better than they are.

Moral equivalency is a false bastion. We are better than them. The terrorists care nothing for human life, for human rights. When our soldiers, contractors, reporters, and civilians get captured, they are executed. They drew first blood, not us. Our actions are justified. My conscience is clear, as it should be.

Seriously, who was interrogated? Was it in the US? Did they have a trial, were they being charged with a crime, were they given a chance to defend themselfes and a lawyer? This is the first thing that pisses me off beyong measurement. It frightens me that Guantanamo in general didn't generate a bigger outcry in the US, it just shows how far we have come. Not releasing the memos just makes everyone all the more suspicious.

Secondly, you cannot trust experts that are not revealed, even in the government or because they are employed in the government. "Experts" have screwed up your country and many others before, you simply cannot trust them just on that basis. These things have to go as openly as possible to avoid overstepping the law and rights that people have under the law. (which the prisoners of guantanamo never had)

You do realise they are saying the *exact same thing* about their conscience being clear, you haven taken the first step etc etc? Have you read Osamas justification for 9/11? Doesn't that make you wonder? I'm not defending terrorists, I'm merely pointing out the ever returning claim of righteousness. The Catholic Inquisition claimed to have the moral high ground that allowed to them to commit their attrocities. I'm sorry, but this really gets to me. You can't ignore that torturing them, utilising the same techniques as them (even if they are more "refined") is simply taking you to the same archaic level they are at.

Torture of imprisoned "terrorists" (and please, for the love of god and for the love of humanity, please prove that they are terrorists and have commited a crime first) should not be legal. It creates more animosity, makes more people hate you, apart from the moral fact (yes, morality) that it just degrades you to "their" level. It is not guaranteed to work. It is NOT justified, considering the deaths and the threat terrorism poses compared to other accepted dangers and causes of death in modern western societies today.

And now Obama has the nerve to ask countries if they want to accept the prisoners of Guantanamo, since the US certainly doesn't want them. It raises the hairs on my back (no I'm not a yeti).

Oh, and thank you dragonfliet for your post, I agree with you and I apologise if I seem to demonize the US, or treat all americans the same, that isn't my intention. Your governments just aggravate me from time to time (as does my own incidentally).