enhanced interrogation techniques "vs" torture

[saberx2]

A professional interrogator could extract information from almost anyone by various psychological methods and also by knowing to lead a conversation.

I agree. We know far too much about the human psyche today to justify ancient out-dated techniques like this. when was waterboarding invented? Conventional physical torture seems so un-professional to me. almost childish.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

We know far too much about the human psyche today to justify ancient out-dated techniques like this. when was waterboarding invented? Conventional physical torture seems so un-professional to me. almost childish.

Torture is really not very effective. I see no real reason why people should torture others for information, unless they're really crappy interrogators that can't do the job.
A professional interrogator could extract information from almost anyone by various psychological methods and also by knowing to lead a conversation.

I think we should leave this to the professionals. No offense but I don't think our opinions on the efficacy of interrogation methods matter much compared to the tried and true expertise of the foremost intelligence gathering agency in the world. I'm sure they know more about this than we do. Plus, as it's been said, it was only three people. This isn't widespread. So, in other words, most if not nearly all of the other suspects were interrogated without waterboarding.

If all else fails, then there are safer truth serums today that can be applied. If you get a tough one, then it's a battle between the interrogator and the person being interrogated, and using violence is a cheap method for winning this challenge.

This isn't a damned game. This is intelligence gathering. And these are last ditch efforts to gain intel. I don't think "playing fair" matters in a "game" wherein lives are at stake.

Plus, "truth serums are not guaranteed to work." Did I also say that international law prohibits the use of truth drugs, as they are considered torture? Hmmm. Besides, sociopaths can easily overcome most methods involved with interrogation, be they drugs or not. You see, normal methods do not work with sociopathic personalities. With them, you have appeal on a different level, for they do not respond as mentally healthy people do.

[skoften]

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.

Reality check, The middle east is on the other side of the world. They deal with LOTS of different laws and cultural behaviours. If terrorists wouldn't care about human life or rights they wouldn't be fighting in a group to support themselfs and believes . The way you say it, You could also state that America doesn't care about human life or rights, and i'm sure there will be lots of incidents to pick from for an example. Also, The terrorists think they have as much reason killing you as you killing them. That's why it's all useless, costs too much damn money and i'm sure in the end there will come nothing out of the middle-east that would satisfy western 'standards'.

[Sathor]

As soon as we run out of oil, our interest in the middle east will be like zero anyway. America won't care about human rights down there. They don't care anyway, tbh.
And Jigsaw, you are real the type they would kill. Because you are what they think a western man is. Totally ignorant to their culture. You don't understand it is perfectly within their standard of human rights to do those things. I don't think its right, but trying to teach a left hand writer to write with his right hand only gives you problems, too.

Btw: Best intelligence was the Stasi, anyway. They didn't even need to torture to get the shit out of you.

[mky]

Honestly, I would much rather have a few terrorists uncomfortable than a few americans die.

But i guess I'm a little on the conservative side.

[TicTac]

Just my two-cents, we consider what we're doing 'right', and they consider what they're doing 'right'. They see us as invaders, which i hate to break it to ya, but we are, and we see them as 'terrorists'. As for torture, I consider myself a Liberal, but I still think that it should be used as a last-ditch effort to extract information but ONLY if there's a VERY high probability that the subject actually has the aforementioned information.

[RefaelBA]

This isn't a damned game. This is intelligence gathering. And these are last ditch efforts to gain intel. I don't think "playing fair" matters in a "game" wherein lives are at stake.

Plus, "truth serums are not guaranteed to work." Did I also say that international law prohibits the use of truth drugs, as they are considered torture? Hmmm. Besides, sociopaths can easily overcome most methods involved with interrogation, be they drugs or not. You see, normal methods do not work with sociopathic personalities. With them, you have appeal on a different level, for they do not respond as mentally healthy people do.

Never meant to say this was a game, but almost in every field of life, one can spot competition if not rivalry. It's not about playing games, it's about breaking a man's will, and to do that you must have a stronger will to begin with, or you'll break first. It's that simple really.
If that's the situation, then you can probably resolve the issue without torture. I do not really care if a terrorist suffers or not, really, I just think that real professionals rarely use extreme pain as a method.

[BillyDa59]

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.

Reality check, The middle east is on the other side of the world. They deal with LOTS of different laws and cultural behaviours. If terrorists wouldn't care about human life or rights they wouldn't be fighting in a group to support themselfs and believes . The way you say it, You could also state that America doesn't care about human life or rights, and i'm sure there will be lots of incidents to pick from for an example. Also, The terrorists think they have as much reason killing you as you killing them. That's why it's all useless, costs too much damn money and i'm sure in the end there will come nothing out of the middle-east that would satisfy western 'standards'.

People realize that the terrorists have cause but, no, they don't really have much regard for human life. Every time one pulls off a suicide bombing, it seems they end up killing more Iraqi citizens than US soldiers. The Alquada and Taliban in Iraq is comparable to PIRA during the troubles. They have a political cause that few support and they've killed civilians.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

And Jigsaw, you are real the type they would kill. Because you are what they think a western man is. Totally ignorant to their culture. You don't understand it is perfectly within their standard of human rights to do those things. I don't think its right, but trying to teach a left hand writer to write with his right hand only gives you problems, too.

Sorry, no. I have spent much time studying the histories and conflicts of these nations. In fact, I find it funny that you call me ignorant despite the actual cultural insights I bring to this conversation.

And they don't care how Western someone is, they would kill any of us if they felt like it. This is where I could call you ignorant of the culture, but I won't. You should know that these terrorists have been essentially brainwashed into an Anti-Western state of mind through a lack of hegemony. Anyone that disagrees with their ideology, like reporters or even tribal leaders, are killed. All that's left is the corrupted teachings of misled people. Plus, they have killed more non-Westerners than Westerners.

You can keep calling me ignorant but in the meantime please go read up on the conflict yourself.

Reality check, The middle east is on the other side of the world. They deal with LOTS of different laws and cultural behaviours.

Reality check? Seriously? Regardless, most of these people don't live in an organized nation state, only in tribal regions like that of the FATA in Pakistan. Pakistani and Afghan laws don't apply to them even if the government's tried they wouldn't obey. So the only law they have is the law they create themselves. That is, the terrorist elders keep the villages in line.

If terrorists wouldn't care about human life or rights they wouldn't be fighting in a group to support themselfs and believes . The way you say it, You could also state that America doesn't care about human life or rights, and i'm sure there will be lots of incidents to pick from for an example. Also, The terrorists think they have as much reason killing you as you killing them.

No, just no. They believe in an ideal, not in rights. They could care less about the unalienable and self-evident rights we hold so dearly. You can't say that you care about human rights and go around killing everyone who disagrees with you. And no, you can't say that America doesn't care about human rights. Because America is a nation of over 300 million people, and it's a country built upon a constitution that ensure human rights. For one, you can't group all the those people together, and second, please stop with these ridiculous notions. After all, the actions of a few hardly represent the beliefs and actions of the whole.

[Mr. Happy]

Seeing as there is no real threat from terrorism, I think it's safe to say that the concept that these practices are allowable goes against the principles that this country was founded upon.

Stop saying this. We've already proven that there is a threat. Stop defying reality.

And I don't see a clear relation(I do see tenuous connections) between Franklin's words and the subject at hand. I can understand the Patriot Act but not this. Please explain.

It creates more animosity, makes more people hate you, apart from the moral fact (yes, morality) that it just degrades you to "their" level.

There is no such thing as a moral fact, only opinion.

Don't be an ass? My last post was the first time I posted in this thread? You haven't proven there is a threat? I'm not defying reality?

I don't see how you cannot see a connection between Franklin's words and the destruction of liberty by Bush's policies. The treatment of prisoners violated their rights, i.e. sacrificed great liberty, for a little temporary safety. As we all know terrorism is a very minor threat.

You cannot name a single large terrorist network with the capability to attack a western country. Why? Because we tore al-qaeda apart and improved our intelligence, security, and law enforcement networks both domestically and internationally.

MayheM said he has heard of several 'plots' that have been foiled, but you actually cannot name a single one. There has been no public evidence to attest to that, and therefore no reason to believe it. Even if plots had been foiled, it is very doubtful they were very serious.

In the end it's simply a matter of numbers. We have had a single major terrorist attack, there hasn't been a single terrorist attack since, and even that one (9/11) wasn't very serious (if you ignore the way we reacted.) Only 3,000 people died on 9/11, that's 1/100th of 1 percent of our population. It feels like alot because we have huge information, tv internet and phone networks bringing a few people's grief all accross the country, but it really wasn't that serious (especially when you compare it to other countries like Iraq or Israel. Now those are countries seriously threatened by terrorism.) Hell, nearly 2.5 million people die in the U.S. each year. If a 9/11 happened every year it would only be 1/10th of 1 percent of the death toll.

So ya, I'll go back to what I said before: the minor minor risk that terrorism poses is not enough to justify anything but morally neutral security procedures at our airports borders and ports.

Oh, and I'm not alone in this, there are alot of scholars who agree with me about terrorism not being a major threat.

[dragonfliet]

I think we should leave this to the professionals. No offense but I don't think our opinions on the efficacy of interrogation methods matter much compared to the tried and true expertise of the foremost intelligence gathering agency in the world.

I agree. (summary of book: torturing is not only less effective, it is counter-productive)

Additionally, when we torture, not only do we receive false information (in fact, it has been stated that we received almost no new information through waterboarding that held up), but we lose credibility as a nation and we bolster the support of terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, there is little we can do to stop the most absolutely ignorant and desolate from being brainwashed, but by torturing and acting unilaterally, the United States further alienates people who would have been possible allies or who were simply neutral-pushing them into anti-american feelings and having them if not joining terrorist organizations, then helping aiding and supporting them.

So not only does it not work, not only are there better ways to go about it, not only is it dehumanizing and unethical, but it actually HELPS the extremists in recruiting.

~Jason

[saberx2]

We know far too much about the human psyche today to justify ancient out-dated techniques like this. when was waterboarding invented? Conventional physical torture seems so un-professional to me. almost childish.

I think we should leave this to the professionals. No offense but I don't think our opinions on the efficacy of interrogation methods matter much compared to the tried and true expertise of the foremost intelligence gathering agency in the world.

None taken. I actually got my outlook from the CIA. So I couldnt really agree w/ you more. They claim things like hypnosis and general mind-fuckery are far more effective than physical torture.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... p_0001.htm

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Hypnosis only works if your want it to work, that's true neuroscience there. But don't get me wrong, I don't want our people "torturing" or using "enhanced interrogation methods" on every inmate. It's just I find it plainly idiotic to want to prosecute those few who actually practiced them. Did they want power? No, they only wanted what was best for this nation.

but we lose credibility as a nation and we bolster the support of terrorist organizations.

You can't lose credibility as a nation, you can lose credibility as an individual, a collective, an organization even, but maligning an entire nation based on the actions of a few is folly. I'm not saying that people still don't see it that way, they do; but anyone claiming to be a reasonable, freethinking individual cannot look at it that way.

Oh, and I'm not alone in this, there are alot of scholars who agree with me about terrorism not being a major threat.

You and they both are not looking at the big picture. To any given American, sure, terrorism is not that great of a threat. But the primary victims of terror are not Westerners, but people living in the same nations as these terrorists. Just take a look at the situation in Pakistan now, especially the attacks on Pakistan's capitol, Islamabad. Then look back at the December attacks in Mumbai. Sure, mainland America or Europe are not in great danger, but the true victims are dying every day. Your so-called scholars need to reexamine the situation.

[RefaelBA]

Oh, and I'm not alone in this, there are alot of scholars who agree with me about terrorism not being a major threat.

Not being alone on this is different than being right about this.
Even if terror is not a great threat currently, the rise of religious extremists (mostly muslims of a very specific type) along with the rate these people are spreading especially across Europe, should leave some room for a few questions.
Terror will be conceived as legitimate by these people unless somebody puts an end to it using violence. Religious extremists that are grown to hate the west and educated to destroy it in their "holy war" cannot really be talked into giving it up. Their view on life is so very different than yours, their lives are ruled by ancient prophecies, strong religious feelings, and lies that demonize the west. I think that compared to a western person's point of view, they consider the west to be something like we consider the Nazis - evil, dangerous, aiming to take over the world. Their "holy war" is a result of decades of mal-education that brought them to believe they are resisting the evil west for the sake of humanity.

I've seen terror first-hand and I believe I know what they think like. Better than most people at least. Their leaders are political figures, that run a network of propaganda which works to generate some very strong feelings among the extreme believers, who then turn to use terror, either personally on with an organization.

Now, sure they rarely get to actually do something significant like 9/11 or that mess in the tubes of London. But as long as they're not being stopped, they'll keep on trying, harder and harder, until something really bad happens or until it turns out to be an all-out war. These people are true fanatics, and so they should be treated before they pose a real threat to anyone. Letting them be will result in having a very serious problem sometime in the future, with no guarantees for any solutions. I will always be a supporter of zero-tolerance towards terror of any kind.

[Sathor]

Was it why they abused those prisoners (terrorists) in that prison? Just to do the best for the nation? You seem to know every agent, and the whole secret service and army, is like an angel. They only do the best for the nation. Nobody likes it to torture people there! You really believe that?