A 'democracy' that tortures: figure it out for yourselves......

[jetdawgg]

Science panel criticizes harsh interrogation styles
By Scott Shane
and Mark Mazzetti
Published: Wednesday, May 30, 2007

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies argues that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.

The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.
While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods - possibly the most important source of information on groups such as al-Qaeda - are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.


Some of the study participants argue that interrogation should be restructured using lessons from many fields, including the tricks of veteran homicide detectives, the persuasive techniques of sophisticated marketing and models from American history.

The science board critique comes as ethical concerns about harsh interrogations are being voiced by current and former government officials. The top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, this month sent a letter to troops warning that ``expedient methods'' using force violated American values.

In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called ``immoral'' some interrogation tactics used by the CIA and the Pentagon.

But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: There is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

The Bush administration is nearing completion of a long-delayed executive order that will set new rules for interrogations by the CIA. The order is expected to ban the harshest techniques used in the past, including the simulated drowning tactic known as water-boarding, but to authorize some methods that go beyond those allowed in the military by the Army Field Manual.

Bush has insisted that those secret ``enhanced'' techniques are crucial, and he is far from alone. The notion that turning up pressure and pain on a prisoner will produce valuable intelligence is a staple of popular culture from the television series ``24'' to the recent Republican presidential debate, where some candidates tried to outdo one another in vowing to get tough on captured terrorists.

A 2005 Harvard study supported the selective use of ``highly coercive'' techniques.
But some of the experts involved in the interrogation review, called ``Educing Information,'' say that during World War II, German and Japanese prisoners were questioned effectively without coercion.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/20...n=nation_world

[drumcorpssnare]

In today's PC world, you can't even raise your voice during an interrogation, without it being considered "cruel and unusual" punishment.

True, the Gestapo and the Japanese military did often glean information from the Allies. Without coercion? These Axis interrogators would quite often torture prisoner "A" unmercifully. Then, prisoner "B", who just witnessed the torture, would answer any and all questions. Is that what you call "without coercion"?

Torture is one of the many sad realities of war. The world needs to "get over it."

Think about it... It's okay to dismember a combatant with mortar schrapnel, a hand-grenade, or IED. You can blow your enemy's head off with a high-powered rifle. But, you can't slap a prisoner in the face, or play loud music 24/7, because that might hurt his feelings???

Get freakin' real!

drumcorpssnare

[Dave Coup]

I say whatever it takes to save American lives. If kissin' and hugs work or a good ***** slapping or rap in the nutz, do it. I can guarantee the Russians, Chinese, Koreans et al wouldn't be concerning themselves with PC BS. Please don't give me the lecture about that's what separates them from us.

SF

Dave

[10thzodiac]

I'm for torture as long is it ain't me

[mark king]

i hope we do if it saves american lives.

[jetdawgg]

This kind of activity causes more hatred for the USA and continues to sink us in the eyes of the world as the other thread shows (96th place).

I don't see how it saves lives at all.

[hrscowboy]

we need to use any force we want and dont give a crap what anyone else thinks...

[10thzodiac]

In Senate testimony, Senator Jack Reed (D., R.I.) asked the military this question: "If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen [under the] control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, answered: "I would describe it as a violation." The next question might be: Why have these and other violations of the Geneva Conventions been certified as legal when employed by the U.S.?

Pace says then that it was "absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted to intervene to stop it."

Rumsfeld said, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

Pace responded, "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."

[jinelson]

Hey jettdawg!

Jim Winky Winky

[Zulu 36]

In Senate testimony, Senator Jack Reed (D., R.I.) asked the military this question: "If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen [under the] control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?"

Sounds like somethings that happened to me and others in boot camp. I guess I should report my DIs for violating the Laws of War (an oxymoron if ever there was one).

[hrscowboy]

Screw the Geneva Convention no other country abides to it why should the USA be the only ones.. Its time to open the Gates of Hell and let the devil dogs do the real job we are trained to do..

[bigdog43701]

cowboy,

you hit the nail square on the head. nike 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

[Dave Coup]

Here's an example of how torture might save lives, albiet a joke 'The FBI takes Jet into custody for interrogation re the location of bomb making material. Initiallly he denies any knowledge. After a good rap in the nutz he remembers that 10th has some in Chi Town and the Sears Tower is saved from from destruction.' I rest my case.

SF

Dave

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Sigh.

I am a veteran of many, many, law enforcement interrogations, including that of homicide suspects. I have to follow a certain and very detailed set of rules as to my conduct. (Vic Mackey...the Shield....AIN'T US lol).

I've also studied interrrogations of POW's, both Allied and German (a very good book, required reading, is of a Luftwaffe interregator, called "The Interregator", now long out of print), Korean, VC, NVA, etc., in an attempt to learn my 'trade' better.

The bottom line is, torture in questioning typically gets the person, if they are untrainined in the 'art' of resisting, to spill all information they have within a very short time. This technique is workable when needed, on little fish.

It is not, however, advised or reccommended, as the little fish goes back and tells all the other fish.

You get more flies with honey, than vinegar, as the saying goes.

Now, however, we have a new kind of enemy (as well as street gangster, altho realistically, AQ terrs are far smarter than street hoods), that has been trained to deal with US techniques, and practiced, very much as we do, in how to defeat them. Claiming to have been tortured is only one of their tactics. They are very, very, good at what they do. Underestimating them is done at our own peril.

Using torture, IMO, would be counterproductive. If only for the probitive media 'value' for 'their' side, alone.

The 'ticking bomb' scenario is one of those 'damned if you do' type of deals. In the short term, some type of coersion *may* work. Then again, it may not.

Having an 'absolute' in place, set down by fat suited morons sitting in an ivory tower, tho, is the absolute worst idea (along with having attorneys in the combat zones) we have ever come up with. Should there be rules and guidelines? Absolutely. Should there be accountability? Absolutely.

However, all that should be "as the situation dictates".

There are no 'right' answers here, just more questions.

[yellowwing]

The primary goal should be getting Intel from prisonors. Keeping them for years in Gitmo is only helping Al Qaeda.