read it and weep. Say hello to our new police state if Obama doesn't veto the crap out of this. But considering how much support it has in the senate and house, it could still be passed despite that.
The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. I know the JBS from my older friends, that are either Libertarians or Republicans, talking about how right wing and crazy they are.
Ahtman wrote:The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. I know the JBS from my older friends, that are either Libertarians or Republicans, talking about how right wing and crazy they are.
They link to firedoglake, which is completely on the other side of the political spectrum.
If you're looking for crazy, that's a good place to start.
I'm unsure whether this is loonies on both sides raising a stink or if it is a legitimate concern. I'm not sure I care enough to find out.
AustonT wrote:And YOU thought my underground bunker system, water wheel, and natural filtration system were CRAZY.
I know right!
I've been drinking my own recycled urine for years, ever since I found out they put fluorine in water... can't have my precious bodily fluids contaminated.
No offense but the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed every year for almost fifty years now. I'd have to read what exactly makes this one different from the previous versions to really make any decision on this.
It's a website run by crazy people, linking to another website run by crazy people, over a bill I hadn't heard of before. I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, but I'd really advise getting information from non-crazy people before panicking.
Melissia wrote:No offense but the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed every year for almost fifty years now. I'd have to read what exactly makes this one different from the previous versions to really make any decision on this.
There are provisions for holding American citizens indefinitely without trial in it. They are shaky, sparsely worded, and exactly the kind of thing that would see dissidents thrown in gitmo without a peep legally. It was penned in response to the Anwar Awlaki thing.
Melissia wrote:No offense but the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed every year for almost fifty years now. I'd have to read what exactly makes this one different from the previous versions to really make any decision on this.
Its related to giving the military power power to deal with detainees and to order executions (which could include US citizens such as the one we airstrike with a drone). I think that's what its about anyway. I'm certain its people having another silly kneejerk reaction about 'oh this bill allows the government to do this' with no sensible explanation for why the government would want to do it in the first place.
The above statement may or may not come to bite me in the buns
Melissia wrote:No offense but the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed every year for almost fifty years now. I'd have to read what exactly makes this one different from the previous versions to really make any decision on this.
Its related to giving the military power power to deal with detainees and to order executions (which could include US citizens such as the one we airstrike with a drone). I think that's what its about anyway. I'm certain its people having another silly kneejerk reaction about 'oh this bill allows the government to do this' with no sensible explanation for why the government would want to do it in the first place.
The above statement may or may not come to bite me in the buns
Melissia wrote:No offense but the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed every year for almost fifty years now. I'd have to read what exactly makes this one different from the previous versions to really make any decision on this.
If what that article is reporting is correct they are dismantling Posse Comitatus.
As currently written, the NDAA text affirms the authority to detain "a person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces" under "the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities," and authorizes "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."
As currently written, the NDAA text affirms the authority to detain "a person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces" under "the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities," and authorizes "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."
Goddamned extraordinary rendition. The "end of hostilities" my ass, that's NEVER going to happen.
It's just like Orwell predicted, they have to keep us scared of some boogeyman or another, so that they can slowly grind us down. That's why FEMA ordered all those plastic coffins that can fit three people each.
I can't see this holding up if the Supreme Court gets a hold of it. Much like the SOPA I just can't get that worked up over something that will get blown out of the water the first time it gets challenged.
Melissia wrote:Goddamned extraordinary rendition. The "end of hostilities" my ass, that's NEVER going to happen.
It's just like Orwell predicted, they have to keep us scared of some boogeyman or another, so that they can slowly grind us down. That's why FEMA ordered all those plastic coffins that can fit three people each.
Plus it´s on Alex Jones so it just haaaaas to be true
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added)
Jihadin wrote:Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added)
just throwing it out there
And the dudes that got captured and shipped to Egypt to be tortured?
Jihadin wrote:Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added)
just throwing it out there
And the dudes that got captured and shipped to Egypt to be tortured?
Don't worry lads, you can all move in with me, I live in Yorkshire where it is civilised and in my local it's 1.26 a pint.
I mean, that right there is reason enough to move. And I would live in any town on earth that had a sub pound pint.
Even if Hitler was resurrected and made the mayor, and the local police carried big spiky dildo's which they raped you with instead of issuing speeding tickets.
mattyrm wrote: Don't worry lads, you can all move in with me, I live in Yorkshire where it is civilised and in my local it's 1.26 a pint.
I mean, that right there is reason enough to move. And I would live in any town on earth that had a sub pound pint.
Even if Hitler was resurrected and made the mayor, and the local police carried big spiky dildo's which they raped you with instead of issuing speeding tickets.
I don't agree with you on much but i agree with you on that...
Though hopefully without Mayor Hitler and spikey dildo traffic poice...
That would be somehwat less than fun.
And the dudes that got captured and shipped to Egypt to be tortured?
What about them?
They should have thought about that before committing acts of terror disguised as non combatants.
If egypt is what it takes to make them talk then bye bye.
Especially when two thirds of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan are released as innocent. I'm sure they were all hardened terrorists. Clearly the policy of torturing thousands of innocents does nothing to spur anti western sentiment.
Especially when two thirds of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan are released as innocent. I'm sure they were all hardened terrorists. Clearly the policy of torturing thousands of innocents does nothing to spur anti western sentiment.
Two thirds? Have sources on that?
Torturing thousands of innocents? Sources?
Besides what torture, depraving someone of sleep in guantanamo? Gimme a break.
Funny thing is this is happening under democrap obama, you know, the change guy that was going to shut down guantanamo
'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"[34]
and away we go
Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.[36] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated,
This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.[37]
Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What was it that GW Bush said: "if you are prepared to sacrifice liberty for security, you deserve neither." Or words to that effect.
Actually, that line is very old, and is commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is surprising how people these days are so willing to give up their freedom for the feeling of security.
Especially when two thirds of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan are released as innocent. I'm sure they were all hardened terrorists. Clearly the policy of torturing thousands of innocents does nothing to spur anti western sentiment.
Two thirds? Have sources on that?
Torturing thousands of innocents? Sources?
Besides what torture, depraving someone of sleep in guantanamo? Gimme a break.
Funny thing is this is happening under democrap obama, you know, the change guy that was going to shut down guantanamo
No. We don't torture people. Scroll up. I said this already. EGYPT DOES FOR US. Well, that's not true. We do actually. We beat people, starve them, deprive them of sleep, drown them while they're upside down, pile dead bodies on them, spray them with fire hoses, force them to stack naked while we take photos, etc. Egypt just cuts off hands and such.
Jihadin wrote:I went straight to youtube looking for that SHum lol but he's right in relation to the thread topic
Not really, we actually do perform torture. We call it enhanced interrogation techniques and the use has dropped off recently but America has been torturing people for years. We used to do much more hardcore stuff. The CIA probably still does. They do assassinations too. This whole image of purity in the armed forces America cultivates is pretty bs and always has been.
We beat people, starve them, deprive them of sleep, drown them while they're upside down, pile dead bodies on them, spray them with fire hoses, force them to stack naked while we take photos, etc. Egypt just cuts off hands and such.
Those knuckleheads got served to if your refering to Abu Ghraib
Colonel Thomas Pappas was relieved of his command on May 13, 2005, after receiving non-judicial punishment on May 9, 2005, for two instances of dereliction, including that of allowing dogs to be present during interrogations. He was fined $8000 under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (non-judicial punishment). He also received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) which effectively ended his military career.
Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan became the highest ranking officer to have charges brought against him in connection with the Abu Ghraib abuse on April 29, 2006.[55] Prior to his trial, eight of twelve charges against him were dismissed, two of the most serious after Major General George Fay admitted that he did not read Jordan his rights before interviewing him in reference to the abuses that had taken place. On August 28, 2007, Jordan was acquitted of all charges related to prisoner mistreatment and received a reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss a 2004 investigation into the allegations.[56]
Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, dishonorable discharge and reduction in rank to private.[57][58] Graner was paroled from the US military's Fort Leavenworth prison on 6 August 2011 after serving six-and-a-half years.[59]
Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included forcing three prisoners to masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.[60]
Sergeant Javal Davis pled guilty February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
Specialist Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to a bad conduct discharge and a reduction of rank to private, upon his plea of guilty.[61]
Specialist Armin Cruz was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[62]
Specialist Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of five years.[63] Harman served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.[64]
Specialist Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.[65]
Private First Class Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years. She was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to three years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to Private (E-1) and received a dishonorable discharge.[60] England had served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.[66]
Sergeant Santos Cardona was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault, the equivalent of a felony in the US civilian justice system. He served 90 days of hard labor at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was then transferred to a new unit where he trained Iraqi police.[67] Cardona was unable to re-enlist due to the conviction, and left the army in 2007. In 2009, he was killed in action while working as a government contractor in Afghanistan.
Specialist Roman Krol pled guilty on February 1, 2005 to conspiracy and maltreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. He was sentenced to ten months confinement, reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.[68]
Specialist Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, was under investigation but was never charged and testified against other soldiers.
Sergeant Michael Smith was found guilty on March 21, 2006 of two counts of prisoner maltreatment, one count of simple assault, one count of conspiracy to maltreat, one count of dereliction of duty and a final charge of an indecent act, and sentenced to 179 days in prison, a fine of $2,250, a demotion to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
Enhanced interrogation causes fear, discomfort and even disorientation, but never physical pain or harm to one's body. Medical doctors are always present to make sure of this and such practice must be sanctioned only by the President of the U.S. The use of any one of these methods can cause one to reveal the truth. Hundreds of American lives have been saved as a result of information gained by these non-torture methods. Lest you think that waterboarding is torture, remember that it has been used as a training tool on our own special ops soldiers so they will know not to fear it if captured by enemy forces. It has also been revealed on Fox news that waterboarding has been used in the past as a hazing ritual in some military academies.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological) as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty. Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer.
I see a big difference here. Of course someone here also been to SERE school like I have and agree...its two different things.
No. We don't torture people. Scroll up. I said this already. EGYPT DOES FOR US. Well, that's not true. We do actually. We beat people, starve them, deprive them of sleep, drown them while they're upside down, pile dead bodies on them, spray them with fire hoses, force them to stack naked while we take photos, etc. Egypt just cuts off hands and such.
What you forgot to mention, Mr non private library is that WE do prosecute and punish the people who stack prisoners naked and take pics of them.
Most of the inmates in guatanamo are according to you what exactly, innocent mothers grabbed while strolling in a park with their toddlers?
The system is not completely right but nor is it completely wrong either as I´m sure both innocents have been collateraled into the system but also a lot of lives have been saved by getting answers out of fanatics by using rough interrogations.
It can be done better of that I´m sure but I can however tell you this:
If someone I know or love gets killed by some bomb in a subway and it could all be prevented by using sleep deprivation during interrogation of some fanatic who knew about it but didnt want to tell but wasnt interrogated properly because of some bleeding heart useful idiot not wanting to violate the poor terrorists feelings and human rights then I would see it as my personal right to hunt down said useful idiot and end him right back myself.
Right or wrong, who can tell, both camps are right and wrong but it sure does follow human nature.
So the US torture on the shadow side of the law then? I haven't heard nor seen a US unit condoning torture on any EPW's/detainee's. Yes we do hand them over to the Afghan National ARMY unless their a teir target but its their province not our's. The Abu Ghraib incident was done at the lowest level by individuals not as an unit as a whole.
Jihadin wrote:I went straight to youtube looking for that SHum lol but he's right in relation to the thread topic
Not really, we actually do perform torture. We call it enhanced interrogation techniques and the use has dropped off recently but America has been torturing people for years. We used to do much more hardcore stuff. The CIA probably still does. They do assassinations too. This whole image of purity in the armed forces America cultivates is pretty bs and always has been.
You mean waterboarding? I can't believe people call that torture. I've been waterboarded. It's not torture.
Jihadin wrote:I went straight to youtube looking for that SHum lol but he's right in relation to the thread topic
Not really, we actually do perform torture. We call it enhanced interrogation techniques and the use has dropped off recently but America has been torturing people for years. We used to do much more hardcore stuff. The CIA probably still does. They do assassinations too. This whole image of purity in the armed forces America cultivates is pretty bs and always has been.
You mean waterboarding? I can't believe people call that torture. I've been waterboarded. It's not torture.
People are going to see it as torture since the information was forced out of them regardless of technique. Bamboo slivers anyone?...they also make great toothpicks
Automatically Appended Next Post: SERE School in '96
Jihadin wrote:I went straight to youtube looking for that SHum lol but he's right in relation to the thread topic
Not really, we actually do perform torture. We call it enhanced interrogation techniques and the use has dropped off recently but America has been torturing people for years. We used to do much more hardcore stuff. The CIA probably still does. They do assassinations too. This whole image of purity in the armed forces America cultivates is pretty bs and always has been.
You mean waterboarding? I can't believe people call that torture. I've been waterboarded. It's not torture.
I don't believe you.
Tough luck if you don't believe me, it's true.
When my uncle was in college he was stripped, tied to a chair, had a pillowcase thrown over his head and thrown down the stairs. That was typical of hazing in his days, especially towards visible minorities. Some of the enhanced techniques are much less than hazing. I guess my uncle's been tortured. Call the international tribunal!
When people talk about waterboarding and the other circus of CIA stuff they're so horrified and sensitive, like people are chopping off limbs so it's less about the intention of the action.
Jihadin wrote:I went straight to youtube looking for that SHum lol but he's right in relation to the thread topic
Not really, we actually do perform torture. We call it enhanced interrogation techniques and the use has dropped off recently but America has been torturing people for years. We used to do much more hardcore stuff. The CIA probably still does. They do assassinations too. This whole image of purity in the armed forces America cultivates is pretty bs and always has been.
You mean waterboarding? I can't believe people call that torture. I've been waterboarded. It's not torture.
I don't believe you.
Tough luck if you don't believe me, it's true.
When my uncle was in college he was stripped, tied to a chair, had a pillowcase thrown over his head and thrown down the stairs. That was typical of hazing in his days, especially towards visible minorities. Some of the enhanced techniques are much less than hazing. I guess my uncle's been tortured. Call the international tribunal!
When people talk about waterboarding and the other circus of CIA stuff they're so horrified and sensitive, like people are chopping off limbs so it's less about the intention of the action.
So now your uncle was, not you? Now I double don't believe you.
edit
I'm about to go through torture. My wife wants ferrets. Actually not me. I love my indoor plants and I have a lot of indoor plants. Takes away the "tan" feeling I get....my plants are going to get torture
When my uncle was in college he was stripped, tied to a chair, had a pillowcase thrown over his head and thrown down the stairs. That was typical of hazing in his days, especially towards visible minorities. Some of the enhanced techniques are much less than hazing. I guess my uncle's been tortured. Call the international tribunal!
When people talk about waterboarding and the other circus of CIA stuff they're so horrified and sensitive, like people are chopping off limbs so it's less about the intention of the action.
Shuma cant help being so sensitive.
Hell, parts of the training our SF units receive is considered worse then the so called torture some terrorists, excuse me, innocent pregnant women unfairly held in guantanamo have to go through.
Shuma, work just called me and they want me to jump on a night shift, this means I wont get any sleep for one and a half whole day/night, it´s pure torture, cant you do anything about it like call some human rights group for me, I could get traumatized.
McNinja, well spotted - that was a trick question America has always had a record of torture, looked what happened to those peaceful Hessians in the 1770s
Back OT hasn't this been a slippery slope of civil rights going west ever since 1917 and that sedition act? The one where the postmaster could open your letters. It's been all down hill from there.
When my uncle was in college he was stripped, tied to a chair, had a pillowcase thrown over his head and thrown down the stairs. That was typical of hazing in his days, especially towards visible minorities. Some of the enhanced techniques are much less than hazing. I guess my uncle's been tortured. Call the international tribunal!
When people talk about waterboarding and the other circus of CIA stuff they're so horrified and sensitive, like people are chopping off limbs so it's less about the intention of the action.
Shuma cant help being so sensitive.
Hell, parts of the training our SF units receive is considered worse then the so called torture some terrorists, excuse me, innocent pregnant women unfairly held in guantanamo have to go through.
Shuma, work just called me and they want me to jump on a night shift, this means I wont get any sleep for one and a half whole day/night, it´s pure torture, cant you do anything about it like call some human rights group for me, I could get traumatized.
Don't worry, I'll make sure someone around here reads a book at some point. You wouldn't of anyway, so it'll be good to have a slightly more educated crowd in the area. we might get some indy films going, maybe play some "find the country on the map" the kinda stuff you wouldn't like.
Mr Hyena wrote:So if torture is wrong, how do we get suspect terrorists who hide as civilians to talk?
Evidence I suppose.
Do we let them go?
Do we have the evidence to support that their a terrorist and are actively involved in plans to commit violence?
What if they set off a bomb?
Hopefully we catch them before it happens.
I can't say I like the idea of handicapping attempts to reduce serious terrorism when we have no real alternative apart from ignoring terror attacks.
Torture doesn't necessarily achieve the goal. Not that I'm against it per se. Torture can work in certain situations according to some. I care little for the suffering of certain people. I'm not really against not torturing them either though.
I'm sure you understand the difficulty in fully gathering evidence and presenting it before a court...while trying to catch a terrorist cell in the act of pulling off a serious terrorist attack.
I'm sure you understand the difficulty in fully gathering evidence and presenting it before a court...while trying to catch a terrorist cell in the act of pulling off a serious terrorist attack.
Who said anything about traditional courts? We've established specialized courts to deal with terrorism and they work fairly fast (but then people complain about transparency in the system). Warrants can be obtained rapidly in emergencies.
Mr Hyena wrote:Rapidly enough though? I'd consider a terrorist attack a pretty immense emergency.
To get that sort of effect, everything would have to be done in what, 2-3 hours max?
It would depend on where in the operatioanl cycle you capture your crap bag.
If the crap bags are still in target recon phase you have days to months. If in target selection weeks to years. If in specific target planning dyas to weeks. Not unless the op has already been launched do you have hours to days...
CuddlySquig wrote:Tough luck if you don't believe me, it's true.
When my uncle was in college he was stripped, tied to a chair, had a pillowcase thrown over his head and thrown down the stairs. That was typical of hazing in his days, especially towards visible minorities. Some of the enhanced techniques are much less than hazing. I guess my uncle's been tortured. Call the international tribunal!
When people talk about waterboarding and the other circus of CIA stuff they're so horrified and sensitive, like people are chopping off limbs so it's less about the intention of the action.
Waterboarding was one of the three methods of torture used by the Spanish Inquisition.
When American soldiers were subjected to water boarding by their Japanese captors in WWII, there was little doubt that what they suffered was torture, and the Japanese soldiers who inflicted it on the American soldiers were hung for it.
The average length that CIA members could last under waterboarding before begging for release was 14 seconds.
Navy SEALS tried to use it as part of their counter-intelligence program, but stopped because it didn't build up resistance to torture at all, as every soldier failed to last.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed lasted two minutes before giving up.
There has been extensive debate within the CIA that the method is ineffective, because it terrifies the prisoner so much that you can't trust anything they tell you.
Basically, your claim above is an absolute crock of gak.
Mr Hyena wrote:Rapidly enough though? I'd consider a terrorist attack a pretty immense emergency.
To get that sort of effect, everything would have to be done in what, 2-3 hours max?
Police forces can arrest you if they think your about to blow up a bomb without a warrant, but once they have you they do have to provide proof that you were going to blow up a bomb within a certain amount of time (I think it's 48 or 72 hours) or they have to release you. If they arrest you because they think your going to blow up a bomb, they probably have the evidence to support the arrest.
sebster wrote:
Waterboarding was one of the three methods of torture used by the Spanish Inquisition.
When American soldiers were subjected to water boarding by their Japanese captors in WWII, there was little doubt that what they suffered was torture, and the Japanese soldiers who inflicted it on the American soldiers were hung for it.
There has been extensive debate within the CIA that the method is ineffective, because it terrifies the prisoner so much that you can't trust anything they tell you.
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
The CIA did not do it to get info, they did it to break the prisoners will. Once the prisoner was broken other interogation methods were used to get info. By the way, that info was then vetted through other sources to confrim/deny it. No one relies on a single source. It worked. Ask KSM.
Basically, your claim above is an absolute crock of gak
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
It as also been a great day for people to say things and then refuse to back them up with evidence....
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
It as also been a great day for people to say things and then refuse to back them up with evidence....
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
It as also been a great day for people to say things and then refuse to back them up with evidence....
It's been a good day all around.
Meh, only decent, got thrown out in -14* weather within 5 minutes of getting to work :/
It was truely "Oh, hello- what's the shovel for, oh ok, please don't close the door in my-"
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
Bull crap, look it up.
Hint: Water Cure is what the Inquisition and the Japanese used. It is different from waterboarding.
sebster wrote:It's a website run by crazy people, linking to another website run by crazy people, over a bill I hadn't heard of before. I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, but I'd really advise getting information from non-crazy people before panicking.
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
Bull crap, look it up.
Hint: Water Cure is what the Inquisition and the Japanese used. It is different from waterboarding.
Yeah, I'm gonna look up the entire history of clandestine CIA waterboarding over the last 40 years. I'll pull out my tiny black book. Thats a thing I have and can do. Oh! Look, in 1984 qin song hym died from waterboarding in cambodia. Look it up in your black book, clearly you have one. You said you knew it.
CptJake wrote:Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
The purpose of which is to make the victim feel like he is drowning, exactly the same as water boarding. The differences are minor and trivial, and both approaches are horrendously effective.
Here's a transcript from a man tortured by the Japanese in the captured Dutch East Indies;
"A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession."
That process exactly lines up with the water boarding that people are now trying to justify. We executed Japanese men for being so sadistic, and now we're trying to pretend that it's an okay thing to do.
The CIA did not do it to get info, they did it to break the prisoners will.
Which is does very quickly, because it's torture.
Once the prisoner was broken other interogation methods were used to get info. By the way, that info was then vetted through other sources to confrim/deny it. No one relies on a single source. It worked. Ask KSM.
The ability to confirm some information does not mean other information gained under torture can be vetted. Nor does it justify the use of torture to gain such information in the first place, which is absolutely the point of my post. Internet tough guy CuddlySquig claimed it wasn't torture, and he was absolutely, 100% full of gak.
It is torture, it breaks people's resolve incredibly quickly, because you are inflicting on people the constant sensation of drowning. The fact that it is an effective torture is why it's used in the first place.
Psychological damage usual follows from physical torture. Being tied up and water boarded for a few hours for days can have some harsh effects on the psyche :p
Psychological and physical torture are the same. Applying the feeling of drowning through the use of external aides is little difference then applying the feeling of burning through external aides. Or of shock. Or of nasuea. Or of extreme chemical withdrawal. You don't apply psychological torture without physical aides, which makes it regular torture.
Hell, cutting off a guys arms is psychological torture. If he didn't feel it in his brain he wouldn't care.
Jihadin wrote:So Psychological is the same as physical torture?
No, not the same. But both are still torture.
Christopher Hitchens claimed waterboarding wasn't torture, and lasted just a few seconds. He knew it was just rigged up for a story, he had complete control over the event and knew he could make it stop whenever he wanted. And despite that he suffers PTSD from the event to this day.
Here's a couple of choice comments from his article;
"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning"
"I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."
Yes which was explain to us clearly. As a way to break the mind and will. Combine that with actual torture which we both know goes against will power. Everyone has a breaking point. Seeing the 5 gal water and a towel I can brace myself. Seeing the 5 gal water container and a TA312 phone with DR8 wres will shock me.
Jihadin wrote:Yes which was explain to us clearly. As a way to break the mind and will. Combine that with actual torture which we both know goes against will power. Everyone has a breaking point. Seeing the 5 gal water and a towel I can brace myself. Seeing the 5 gal water container and a TA312 phone with DR8 wres will shock me.
Then after they use the water they'll put the rest away, since apparently waterboarding is a hell of a lot harder to resist then electroshock or nagging phonecallls.
Yeah, but that's simulated. Students know very well that it's going to be over eventually, and that they still have their rights. When your chained up for months at a time, it really takes its toll...
mattyrm wrote: Don't worry lads, you can all move in with me, I live in Yorkshire where it is civilised and in my local it's 1.26 a pint.
I mean, that right there is reason enough to move. And I would live in any town on earth that had a sub pound pint.
Even if Hitler was resurrected and made the mayor, and the local police carried big spiky dildo's which they raped you with instead of issuing speeding tickets.
Dildo rape and hitler references in the same post!?! Texting from the pub by any chance?
anyway. If I had I choice. I rather go through Enhance Interrogation then actual torture. Physical torture involes a lot of freaking pain but since few here knows SERE a brief idea on what it is like
I was a U.S. Army SERE Instructor. SERE stands for survival, evasion, resistance and escape. I graduated from the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center SERE Instructor Course at Camp Mackall in 1984 when COL Rowe was still the commandant and was still teaching classes there. COL Rowe was held POW in Vietnam under the worst conditions for five years until, on a work detail, he managed to kill his guard and escape. Sadly, COL Rowe was assassinated in February 1989 by communist insurgents while serving as chief of the Army division of the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group in the Philippines.* He was a great man and I am proud to have served under him.
Over at Slate, William Saletan is discussing the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammad was not subjected to any torture technique that U.S. military personnel are not routinely subjected to. The pain and discomfort Mohammad experienced was no worse than the pain and discomfort thousands of U.S. military personnel have experienced over the decades. Saletan, however, tells us that SERE training is akin to S&M but the same techniques used on al Qaeda constitute rape. Well.
Saletan argues that, since soldiers know it is training and terrorists know it isn’t, it is therefore psychologically far worse for terrorists. A psychologist points out that SERE students are being trained to defeat interrogation, not succumb. They also state that trainees know it will end on graduation day. They point out several ways that torture is psychologically easier on trainees that al Qaeda.
For the most part I don’t disagree. Knowing the guys pouring water on your face are fellow soldiers and trainers has to make it somewhat easier. He goes on to claim, however, that the most important difference is that students can quit if they so choose.
Fifth and most important, SERE is voluntary. “Students can withdraw from training,” Ogrisseg noted. In a report issued four months ago, the Armed Services Committee added that in SERE, “students are even given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop” any ordeal.
I disagree with this point. First and most obviously, the terrorists being interrogated can quit too. They can choose to start talking and the procedure will end. In fact, that is the very point of the exercise: talk and the water boarding will end. Terrorists, of course, don’t want to quit. I didn’t want to quit either.
As a matter of fact, SERE School is a very exclusive course. I went to great lengths to be allowed to apply for the course, to get accepted to the course and to pass the course. In the Army, voluntarily quitting a military schools is a very, very bad thing. Back in the 1980s when I served, quitting would get you what was called a “lack of motivation discharge” from the school. Woe be to the soldier who returned to his unit with an LOM discharge.
First would come the written counseling statements for your permanent record. That alone might very well bar you from reenlistment effectively ending your military career.
Secondly, you could forget having any and all good things to happen to you and expect many bad things to start happening. Once you are an LOM you are permanently a “gak bird” and gak birds get treated like, well, gak. You might never pass a field equipment inspection again causing “remedial training” exercises with the rest of the gak birds on Saturday mornings. You could expect your name to come up for nasty extra duty assignments way more often than can be explained by random chance. Essentially, life in the Army sucks for an LOM. It sucks to be you if you are deemed a gak bird.
By far the worst result of quitting would be the loss of social stature among your fellow soldiers. You would be seen forever more as a “non-hacker” who couldn’t be trusted when the gak gets deep. LOMs actually lose friends and are ostracized within their units. It is a special kind of hell that can make a soldier suffer in ways that are hard to explain and extremely hurtful. An LOM can change the trajectory of a young man’s life.
When I was subjected to the worst the trainers had to offer, I couldn’t quit. No way. Quitting would mean humiliation in front of my fellow soldiers: men from whom I wanted respect more than anyone else in the world. There was no way I could do the walk of shame into my unit headquarters carrying a lack of motivation discharge. I was a young man in my twenties and, at that point in my life, I am certain that I would have let them kill me before I would quit. Quitting was absolutely, positively out of the question. I have seen the same determination in hundreds of soldiers facing intense, harsh training.
The interrogations are no more physically painful for terrorists than for military trainees. The techniques are the same. You can argue, I suppose, that knowing that it is a training situation makes it easier on military trainees than it is on terrorist being interrogated. I do not believe, however, that for most military members who have been deemed proficient enough warriors to attend SERE training would find it any easier to quit than did Khalid Sheik Mohammad. At that time, at that age, I would have preferred death to failure. Quitting was a mortal sin that could not be contemplated. I didn’t quit. Mohammad did eventually quit.
I guess the final point I want to make from this former SERE Instructor’s perspective is this: I don’t really give a damn if KSM gets a little PSD if it saves American lives. If I could take harsh interrogation techniques, that ??$$y can too.
20 plus days of mind numbing lack of sleep and other goodies
Did they ever repeatedly punch you in the face at SERE school? If not then harsh interrogation techniques used by us abroad are still probably a bit harsher. The stuff used by afghans or (previously) egyptians being worse then that.
There's a difference between being tortured against your will and voluntarily signing up for it as part of a training course. SERE instructors will tell you it's still torture:
Jihadin wrote:anyway. If I had I choice. I rather go through Enhance Interrogation then actual torture. Physical torture involes a lot of freaking pain but since few here knows SERE a brief idea on what it is like
Probably most people would. From what I've read, plenty change their mind after they suffered waterboarding, but that's neither here nor there, because at the end of the day, no matter which one you or I would prefer to suffer, they're both forms of torture, and we shouldn't tolerate our governments inflicting either of them on anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:There's a difference between being tortured against your will and voluntarily signing up for it as part of a training course. SERE instructors will tell you it's still torture:
This is kind of the bizarreness of the whole thing.
"Water boarding isn't torture, why we even do it to our own troops as part of SERE."
"What's the purpose of that part of SERE?"
"Well we torture them to help them develop the willpower to resist torture in the real world."
"So you waterboard them because that's the kind of torture they'll suffer in the real world?"
"Yes."
"But waterboarding isn't torture?"
Enhance Interrogation. Its a mind game then. Instead say physical torture can get the intell from an individual going all out. 48 hrs. The enhance like 4-5 days because sleep deprivation comes into play. Top it all off there's a Koran they use sometimes to make them swear on it. Its a huge deal to a insurgent/terrorist unlike using the Bible for the same way to some of us.
edit
The Enhance Interrogation is the best moral high ground I see. As for quick trips to Egypt then that individual has knowledge thats needed/or deemed high value. Since that decision is way up on the food chain its something I'm not concern about. What I am concen about is the intell being glean from an individual on a tactical level from an insurgent. A actual terrorist say like the ones that set up a bomb a Kabul that killed like 54 people then I could care less about and get all the intell on the financer and his cell, connections where he brought the material from, and contacts along the way as the material is being brought in.
You know mere bullets are ineffective aginst vampires right...
Silver bullets too?
Don't worry, I'll make sure someone around here reads a book at some point. You wouldn't of anyway, so it'll be good to have a slightly more educated crowd in the area. we might get some indy films going, maybe play some "find the country on the map" the kinda stuff you wouldn't like.
You have a good point there, indie films and debates with educated people...such as yourself, will surely make the terrorist fanatic talk and reveal everything. How could I fail to see that.
Plus we get to maintain their human rights and sensitivities
Now I need to go find someone willing to buy the whole 18 meters full of bookshelves that I have at home, wouldnt want anyone thinking I am educated
So if torture is wrong, how do we get suspect terrorists who hide as civilians to talk?
Evidence I suppose.
Aha, that is a genius move.
-FBI/CIA guy: Mr Terrorist we know and have evidence of you knowing who planted the bomb, now tell us who exactly is it so that we can apprehend him and um...ask him nicely too!
-Terrorist: Eat gak infidel, I tell you nothing!
-FBI/CIA guy: Tell us everything we know, we have evidence you know and if you wont tell us we will bring in Shuma and his educated indie music.
-Terrorist: By allah, no, not that, I will talk just keep Shuma and the indie music away from me!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ A VERY good movie that you all should see.
It is about this very dilemma and supports both sides of the argument.
Spoiler:
The utter fail of being nice to 3 people to stave of some moral dilemmas cost a million americans their lives. Question is how much do morals cost? Can I keep my morals if it costs the lives of 10 otehr people, what about 100 000 other people, can I still maintain moral high ground and be nice if the stakes are that high? What will the relatives to all those killed say to me when they find out I could have prevented it by killing or torturing one person?
When American soldiers were subjected to water boarding by their Japanese captors in WWII, there was little doubt that what they suffered was torture, and the Japanese soldiers who inflicted it on the American soldiers were hung for it.
To bad we are exposing our own soldiers to "torture" today then.
But since it is done under controlled forms, meaning the soldier can make it stop by saying so it is apparently much less traumatizing then having the terrorist go through the same thing where he to can make it all stop by saying so.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed lasted two minutes before giving up.
But he *gasp* gave up *gasp*
Huge difference between the water torture the Japanese and the Inquisition did and the waterboarding done by the CIA. The methods are completely different, as are the results (no one died while being waterboarded by the CIA for example...)
The CIA did not do it to get info, they did it to break the prisoners will. Once the prisoner was broken other interogation methods were used to get info. By the way, that info was then vetted through other sources to confrim/deny it. No one relies on a single source. It worked. Ask KSM.
Precisely.
My personal stance on these things is that IF there is enough time then use humane methods but IF time is of an essence and lives are at stake and the prisoner is known to have information that will help but refuses to talk then bring out the thumb screws to break him down, it´s his own choice.
I went to high school, Torture isn't so bad.
Tell me about it, I´d rather be waterboarded (no gak) then having to go through that time again.
Ooooh! Another check in the box for "people saying things that they couldn't possibly know". This has been a good day for that.
Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?
Bull crap, look it up.
Hint: Water Cure is what the Inquisition and the Japanese used. It is different from waterboarding.
Shh, dont confuse him with facts now.
The purpose of which is to make the victim feel like he is drowning, exactly the same as water boarding. The differences are minor and trivial
One application often killed and the other way doesnt kill but yeah, very trivial differences indeed.
We executed Japanese men for being so sadistic
But we let japanese who rutinely performed live biopsies on prisoners deliberately affected with anthrax go with no punishement what so ever.
Nice to see you pick and choose your examples as long as they suit your agenda.
Does it really? SERE School
It can but it doesnt mean that it automatically always does.
There are people that have the strenght to return and face the most traumatizing things and then there are fluffy indie music hippies who consider paying taxes bring torture
Christopher Hitchens claimed waterboarding wasn't torture, and lasted just a few seconds. He knew it was just rigged up for a story, he had complete control over the event and knew he could make it stop whenever he wanted. And despite that he suffers PTSD from the event to this day.
Here's a couple of choice comments from his article;
"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning"
It must be true because one guy says so and got a PTSD.
According to this logic every single SF operator we have must be going around with PTSDs directly after training then.
Interesting.
Then after they use the water they'll put the rest away, since apparently waterboarding is a hell of a lot harder to resist then electroshock or nagging phonecallls.
Yeah it is. I almost drowned once, was NOT a funny feeling and that didnt even happen under "controlled" forms, I was certain that I was about to die.
But then afterwards I was obviously oh so traumatized and suffered from such severe PTSD that later on I kept doing what I do and an accident occurred and I almost drowned AGAIN for the second time. Still not under controlled forms and still not a very fun feeling but damn, where are my bad dreams, PTSD and other assorted trauma.
Please Shuma I should be all traumatized and suffer all kinds of phobias by now but I´m not and I dont, I dont even suffer bad dreams regarding those events, what is wrong with me, am I not liberal and soft enough? What kind of indie music must I listen to to become as perfect as you are?
Yeah, but that's simulated. Students know very well that it's going to be over eventually, and that they still have their rights. When your chained up for months at a time, it really takes its toll...
You mean locked in for months, just as every other "normal" prisoner in the US prison system or rather not since in the "special" prisons you dont risk getting killed by other inmates as much and you certainly dont risk getting subjected to "surprise sex" in the shower by Bubba and his dropped bar of soap.
As for being subjected to simulated drowning while being locked up for months and it not being done under controlled forms, I concur, the SERE trainee needs just say stop and of he goes home as a failure of the course BUT when it comes to the locked up for months terrorist, all he need to do is to say "stop, I will tell you everything you need to know" and it stops and he becomes a failed terrorist.
What´s the difference again?
If I had I choice. I rather go through Enhance Interrogation then actual torture.
Yup, waterboard me in a US facility rather then cut my throat in those humane sand holes of the adversary.
So...how do we get terrorists to talk?
Easy. Happy thoughts, halal food, human rights, religious sensitivities and other wonderful things.
You see the secret is that the second we treat them in humane and nice ways that they themselves never use to treat their enemies they become all soft and start to cry and give up all their secrets. It really works, just ask Shuma.
Humane methods are much more effective in the real world. Funny thing, we have, and have had for decades, professional military interrogators who don't use torture and who get results. Let's let one of them explain it:
Sunday Forum:
Two problems with torture
It's wrong and it doesn't work, according to interrogation expert STUART HERRINGTON
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Recently revealed White House memos have raised the ugly question yet again: Is torturing prisoners captured in the Global War on Terrorism an effective and permissible use of our nation's might?
I served 30 years in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer, which included extensive experience as an interrogator in Vietnam, in Panama and during the 1991 Gulf War. In the course of these sensitive missions, my teams and I collected mountains of excellent, verified information, despite the fact that we never laid a hostile hand on a prisoner. Had one of my interrogators done so, he would have been disciplined and most likely relieved of his duties.
Since my retirement, I have twice answered the Army's call, journeying to Guantanamo and Iraq to evaluate interrogation procedures. Subsequently, when the terrible tsunami of verified reports of detainee torture by American soldiers overwhelmed the dikes, the Army asked me to assist in training a new battalion of Iraq-bound Army interrogators in non-coercive interrogation techniques.
As regular readers of these pages may recall, I am a native Pittsburgher, the product of a superlative education at Mt. Lebanon High School and Duquesne University. I was commissioned through Army ROTC at Duquesne after completing a liberal arts curriculum. Fundamental concepts of right and wrong were basic building blocks of this education.
Stuart Herrington is a retired Army colonel, an expert in interrogation and counterinsurgency operations and the author most recently of "Traitors Among Us: Inside the Spy Catcher's World" (stuh38@yahoo.com).
Forty-plus years ago, as fall winds coursed across the Bluff, ethics professor Dr. Arthur Schrynemakers, in a voice of Dutch-accented English that still rings in my memory, declared to my freshman class that ethical principles were absolute. Right was right; wrong was wrong. When he pointed his finger at those of us in the front row and thundered that it was ethically impermissible to commit an evil act and attempt to justify it because that evil act might lead to some future good, we listened -- and some of us remembered.
Coming from this background, it has been disappointing to observe the ongoing debate about torture in interrogation, usually carried out be people who have never interrogated a soul. Nor is it easy to accept that the current debate is framed pragmatically by the question, "Does torture work or not?"
In a recent interview with NPR's Terry Gross, I told her that 10 years ago the notion we would even be having such a dialogue was unthinkable. Somehow, perhaps blinded by the horrors of 9-11 and its aftermath, or by that barrage of chilling video footage of hooded executioners snuffing out the lives of journalists, civilians and soldiers, we have lost sight of other equally relevant questions: Is torture right or wrong? Is the brutalizing of helpless prisoners a practice that will advance or harm our nation's position as it wages a just war against Islamist extremists?
One can almost hear the late Dr. Schrynemakers expound on this question. Wagging his finger, he would note that government sanctioning of mistreatment of prisoners by its intelligence officers is an essentially evil act committed in the name of self-defense, which has propelled our great country down a slippery moral slope and imperiled us further.
Treat captives as guests
I and other authentic practitioners of the interrogation art respect our adversaries, however wrong we may deem their cause. We know that obtaining information from a captive who is motivated by his beliefs, his country, his honor or perhaps by the very human desire to live a full life with his family, is an elusive task that requires a patient, systematic approach.
One has to "go to school" on each captive. Who is he? Can I communicate with him in his language? What are his core beliefs? His loves? Hates? Fears? Where do his loyalties lie? Does he have a family, an inflated ego, perhaps some other core vulnerability? Does he have a hobby or some passion that might get him talking? What do we know about his activities before he fell into our hands? What about his religion? Sect? Tribe? Culture? Or the history of his movement? What have other captives in our hands said about him? Did he have documents or a computer that were seized with him? What drives this unique individual?
Professional interrogation is thus a developmental process, requiring extensive preparation. It requires in-depth assessment of the prisoner, all complemented by a healthy measure of guile, wits and patience.
Seasoned interrogators know that an important first step is to disarm one's adversary by resorting to the unexpected. Treat a captured general or colonel with dignity and respect. Better yet, treat a sergeant like he is a colonel or general.
In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality. Patience was essential. We rejected the view that interrogators could merely "take off the gloves" and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our "guests." This notion was uninformed and counterproductive, not to mention illegal, and we made sure our chain of command understood that bowing to such tempting theories would result in bad information.
Persuasive? I'd always thought so, and it certainly worked for us in contingency after contingency in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. But when I explained these immutable principles to an auditorium of young Army interrogators last year, one reaction puzzled me. "Sir," a young soldier queried, "that 'tender-loving-care approach' sounds all well and good, but it takes time. What do we do when the chain of command sends out a requirement and says they need the information by the end of the day, and that thousands of lives may depend upon it?"
The very question tells us that intelligence professionals have failed to educate their commanders that detainee interrogation is not like a water spigot. "Give the inquisitors the freedom to push the envelope of brutality and good information will follow" seems to have become the watchword since 9-11.
It also tells us that our young soldiers take away lessons from today's pop culture. Self-styled "experts" on interrogation frequently cite the "ticking bomb scenario" (featured on shows like "24") to justify the Jack Bauer-like tormenting of a prisoner. According to this construct, it is necessary and acceptable to torture in the name of saving an American city from "the next 9-11." This has a magnetic appeal to legions of Americans, among them future soldiers.
But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career. Even so, it has become the rallying cry of many well-intentioned but ethically challenged military and civilian personnel. And it has been hawked by a large constituency of senior government officials, from the White House to the Department of Justice to Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and is most recently evidenced in the surfacing of a January 2005 memo, written almost a year after Abu Ghraib, that characterizes face slapping and waterboarding as acceptable conduct.
Keep the gloves on
When a professional interrogator sits across from a captured Iraqi general who possesses information about the Iraqi nuclear program, or who knows why Saddam did not toss nerve gas at our massed forces, the interrogator knows he is facing a formidable adversary, an educated, trained professional strongly inclined by his Iraqi patriotism and survival instincts to deny his interrogator such information. The interrogator's challenge in such situations is to assess and manipulate the situation, somehow persuading his captive to make disclosures in spite of the prisoner's visceral fear of the consequences if he helps the enemy. The role of the interrogator is, in essence, that of a recruiter. The prisoner must be convinced that if he reveals state secrets, his captor will handle his trust with discretion and take care of him.
Generations of professional interrogators have possessed such skills, and used them to obtain information vital to our country. Those who have not mastered these techniques fall back on the ultimate admission of incompetence and resort to brutality. Once this moral frontier is crossed, captives on the receiving end of such treatment respond to their survival instincts. Spurred by cunning and fueled by the hatred stoked by their tormentor's brutality, they respond as our American aviators responded in the Hanoi Hilton, showing their contempt by lying, invention, stalling -- anything to stop the abuse -- or by accepting death before dishonor.
For 30 years, I was fortunate to work with talented professionals. We benefited from good training, including the need to adhere to the law. We never felt pressured "to take the gloves off" and mistreat our captives. On the contrary, our chain of command encouraged good treatment, and there was never a thought of traveling down the wrong road.
Regrettably, such an approach may not have satisfied a number of our senior leaders since 9/11, but it would surely have pleased Dr. Schrynemakers. It was a good approach then, and it remains so.
Three men in custody
Question: What do these three men have in common?
• A wounded North Vietnamese Army sergeant, captured only after he exhausted his ammunition, brags that his Army is "liberating" the South and refuses to cooperate under harsh treatment by South Vietnamese interrogators. He then provides Americans with information about his unit, its missions, its infiltration route. He even assists in interrogating other prisoners. Granted amnesty, he serves in the South Vietnamese Army for the duration of the war.
• A captured Panamanian staff officer, morose and angry, initially lies and stonewalls his American interrogator but ultimately reveals his role in his leader's shadowy contacts with North Korea, Cuba, Libya and the Palestine Liberation Organization. He provides information about covert arms purchases and a desperate attempt to procure SAM missiles to shoot down American helicopters in the event of an American invasion.
• An Iraqi general, captured and humiliated during Operation Desert Storm, is initially frightened and defiant but eventually cooperates, knowing that Saddam Hussein's penalty for treason was certain death. Before repatriation, the general hands his captor his prayer beads and a scrap of paper bearing an address, saying with emotion, "Our Islamic custom requires that we show gratitude to those who bestow kindness and mercy. These beads comforted me through your Air Force's fierce bombings for 39 days, but they are all I have. When Saddam is gone, please come to my home. You will be an honored guest and we will slaughter a lamb to welcome you."
Answer: All three were treated by their American captors with dignity and respect. No torture; no mistreatment.
Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?
Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.
How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks
So...die basically?
Someones going to. Everyone dies. When you lose the moral authority to act as America has you lose the ability to stamp out extremism. It doesn't help in making them forgive America and the west when their claims that we are imperialists, torturers, and Zionists are made true by the actions of the most cowardly among us.
Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.
Someones going to. Everyone dies. When you lose the moral authority to act as America has you lose the ability to stamp out extremism. It doesn't help in making them forgive America and the west when their claims that we are imperialists, torturers, and Zionists are made true by the actions of the most cowardly among us.
I don't have alot vested in the torture stance, so thats fine but...how do we stop our people dying?
And how do we help those of our people who are blown up given we didn't try our fullest to help stop the attack?
I would rather have less torture, but I don't see workable, realistic alternatives given that the enemy is indoctrinated from birth.
How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks
So...die basically?
Mate, me and Shuma like a good disagreement, but how you got that meaning from the above sensible sentence is beyond me.
Its the quote mine of the goddamn century!
In a macro sense he's right though. Terrorists don't usually spend their days in the boxing ring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.
Someones going to. Everyone dies. When you lose the moral authority to act as America has you lose the ability to stamp out extremism. It doesn't help in making them forgive America and the west when their claims that we are imperialists, torturers, and Zionists are made true by the actions of the most cowardly among us.
I don't have alot vested in the torture stance, so thats fine but...how do we stop our people dying?
And how do we help those of our people who are blown up given we didn't try our fullest to help stop the attack?
You can't. No country has ever been able to make it's citizens safe from random acts of violence. It's fundamentally impossible. What you can do is prevent the people who perpetrate such violence from wanting to. You can do that by killing them, you can do that by making them our friends. You can't do that by torturing them as we've found out. All that does is vindicate them and aid in their recruitment. Sure, you might stop a few attack attempts, but so long as they want to attack us you can't stop them from coming.
You can't. No country has ever been able to make it's citizens safe from random acts of violence. It's fundamentally impossible. What you can do is prevent the people who perpetrate such violence from wanting to. You can do that by killing them, you can do that by making them our friends. You can't do that by torturing them as we've found out. All that does is vindicate them and aid in their recruitment.
That is true.
However an incredibly powerful recruiting tool is successful attacks.
Mr Hyena wrote:Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.
Yeah but he didnt REALLY say that did he? He basically said the common sense thing, that there is a happy middle ground between risk/freedom.
Too far one way, you get blown up twice a week, too far the other your not allowed outside 12 hours a day.
Its not rocket science is it? We can all have a debate about where we think the line should be drawn in the sand, and the complex issue of where to draw the line between safety and freedom, but nobody is (or would be stupid enough) to say "Everyone should be on curfew always!" or "Cops shouldn't be allowed to stop and question people!"
As I said, just stick to what the blokes actually saying.
You can't. No country has ever been able to make it's citizens safe from random acts of violence. It's fundamentally impossible. What you can do is prevent the people who perpetrate such violence from wanting to. You can do that by killing them, you can do that by making them our friends. You can't do that by torturing them as we've found out. All that does is vindicate them and aid in their recruitment.
That is true.
However an incredibly powerful recruiting tool is successful attacks.
Certainly true, but only for people in the market for extremism. The anti western sentiment is something we have cultivated for decades, but it isn't self generating. People want to attack the west because they blame them for the lack of jobs, prospects, and for random acts of violence and detainment. Radical islam is simply the symptom of that expression of hate. The first step in reducing extremism abroad is identifying and rectifying situations that lead to young men wanting to become extremists. We're doing that. Poorly, but we're trying. We're also shooting ourselves in the foot every time we break our own professed moral code and vindicate their belief that we're there to kill them/exploit them/kill islam.
It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.
It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.
It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.
It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.
It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.
It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up. It's not the America I would want to live in, and I suspect England isn't fond of the idea either.
It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.
My basic moral code of beliefs is just fine with :aggressive negotiation" in regards to terrorists.
Also help with the otherside has the same level of education and prosperty. As for drawing the line. Not my place to say nor neither do I condone itl. If the gov't wants to crack a terrorist with haste then by all means do so.
The debate opened with a clash over the USA Patriot Act and the trade-off between civil liberties and homeland security. Paul called the Patriot Act “unpatriotic.” He said that there is no need to “sacrifice liberty for security” and that the criminal justice system had effectively dealt with Timothy J. McVeigh, who was responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”
Also help with the otherside has the same level of education and prosperty. As for drawing the line. Not my place to say nor neither do I condone itl. If the gov't wants to crack a terrorist with haste then by all means do so.
In a democracy it's both your place and duty to say. It's what you're supposed to do.
The debate opened with a clash over the USA Patriot Act and the trade-off between civil liberties and homeland security. Paul called the Patriot Act “unpatriotic.” He said that there is no need to “sacrifice liberty for security” and that the criminal justice system had effectively dealt with Timothy J. McVeigh, who was responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”
Freedom, honor, compassion, all that Jazz. Newts a shriveled husk of a human being who hasn't felt a feeling in 20 years.
Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”
Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?
Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.
Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.
Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?
Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.
Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.
Where in the social contract does it say "our armed forces will torture people"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Gingrich responded: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”
This is what we should be aiming for.
We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Freedom, honor, compassion, all that Jazz. Newts a shriveled husk of a human being who hasn't felt a feeling in 20 years.
erm....cept I lost my feeling towards the bad gouy 7 yrs ago
And what about the two guys to the left and the right of him that had nothing to do with it who got pinched anyway? Do you actually care about the internment or torture of innocents, or is it acceptable damage?
We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?
Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?
halonachos wrote:Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.
Maybe YOUR society, but here in Texas, society expects to be able to defend itself alongside the defenses carried out by the state...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.
Not exactly much good when you're thrown in a prison, without charges, to waste years of your life without purpose.
We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?
Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?
Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.
Yes. A life is no good when lived in cowardice and on a pile of the dead. Ideals either mean something or they don't. I chose to believe that they do, and that the systematic dismantling of the rule of law and human rights is a sad, sad thing.
Cant you go do something constructive instead of just criticizing everyone that doesnt share your fluffy opinions...like you know help develope some fool proof method of interrogating fanatics by singing kumbaya songs or drinking tee and hugging them?
Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.
Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.
that is bull. There are no societal rules. Not in this day and age. Civilians hnow have the capacity to defend themselves, and there is no reason whatsoever that should give up that capacity. The government can't protect people from being raped, or mugged, or stabbed to death. They can only react. People in those situations are only ones who can truly defend themselves (and if you think the police will save you, or even be there on time, 1) you are insanely naïve, and 2) warren v. District of colombia).
I refuse to have my well-being put in the hands of a government, and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to live in a police state.
We should be aiming to prevent a hyperbolic theoretical situation that has never occurred by spending billions and losing our ideals as the land of the free home of the brave?
Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?
Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.
Yes. A life is no good when lived in cowardice and on a pile of the dead. Ideals either mean something or they don't. I chose to believe that they do, and that the systematic dismantling of the rule of law and human rights is a sad, sad thing.
And thats good and well. I happen to believe however that there is no society if the people are dead.
Not exactly much good when you're thrown in a prison, without charges, to waste years of your life without purpose.
Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.
I agree however that it is important to provide evidence once the incident is solved.
And thats good and well. I happen to believe however that there is no society if the people are dead.
I find it funny how many parallels there are between this and that dog thread. Terrorism is a tiny, angry dog. It can't hurt us. They can't inflict meaningful damage. More people are killed in America by lightning then terrorism annually. And yet look at that. You have to protect yourself by abasing any sense of decency once held because you don't want to get some scratches. Some pitiful, meaningless scratches.
Will people die? Yeah. Whether you tear down what America is or not. There will be death. That's reality. Take it with your head held high, let those deaths mean something. Every war ever fought in the name of freedom or decency is not yours to throw away.
Nevermind the fact that we've created more terrorists in the past ten years then have ever existed before. Nevermind the fact that both of our interventions have failed miserably. Nevermind the fact that the entire world has come to doubt what America stands for. Just stop dishonoring everything you hear at the start of every sporting event, childs classroom, and holiday. That America is the best country in the world, the freest, the most honorable, the strongest, and the smartest. Just stop fething that up so you can hold your pillow a little easier.
:edit: I just noticed that you're not American. Ummm... Crap. Replace all instance of the world America with england and make it slightly more sarcastic, but not much. Sun never sets, wot wot, cherrio.
Terrorism is a tiny, angry dog. It can't hurt us. They can't inflict meaningful damage. More people are killed in America by lightning then terrorism annually. And yet look at that. You have to protect yourself by abasing any sense of decency once held because you don't want to get some scratches. Some pitiful, meaningless scratches.
Though we understand your point, you may want to consider that some may misunderstand your meaning.
All it takes is one small discharge in a highly populated area....maybe I'm going to stick with a big dog with a small bite that affects the masses. No one desreves to live in fear.
I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.
Then there is always that dirty bomb or other area denial attack scenario that could take out a port city or similar. That just might hurt the country too...
But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.
CptJake wrote:I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.
Then there is always that dirty bomb or other area denial attack scenario that could take out a port city or similar. That just might hurt the country too...
But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.
Are you dead from 9/11? Is your family? Your busdriver? Your dentist? Anyone you even know? 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack in modern history and a decade later none of it did anything to us except what we did to ourselves (2 invasions and the destruction of our ideals). The deaths? A rounding error in annual heart disease deaths, and I don't have to hear about that gak every day on the news. We're not bombing McDonalds or torturing it's financial contributors. We didn't invade japan because toyota cars were involved in more deaths then terrorists in the worst year for terrorism in history.
This argument is bs. 9/11 was special because it's the sacred flower, not because it was numerically meaningful. In it's wake we lost more soldiers then died that day and we're no safer. We took all of the goodwill engendered and threw it in the trash. We dishonored every person that died that day, and we're still doing it.
How many people die in a single day from food poisoning? How many buildings does food poisoning destroy in a typical day? What is the economic damage to the nation from that single day of food poisoning?
As anyone with a teeny bit of experience in risk management and mitigation will tell you, the magnitude of the outcome must be looked at along with the likelyhood.
It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
CptJake wrote:
But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.
Are you dead from 9/11? Is your family? Your busdriver? Your dentist? Anyone you even know? 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack in modern history and a decade later none of it did anything to us except what we did to ourselves (2 invasions and the destruction of our ideals). The deaths? A rounding error in annual heart disease deaths, and I don't have to hear about that gak every day on the news. We didn't invade japan because toyota cars were involved in more deaths then terrorists in the worst year for terrorism in history.
This argument is bs. 9/11 was special because it's the sacred flower, not because it was numerically meaningful. In it's wake we lost more soldiers then died that day and we're no safer. We took all of the goodwill engendered and threw it in the trash.
Yeah, actually my wife and I lost a good budy in the pentagon that day. Thanks for trivializing it.
CptJake wrote:How many people die in a single day from food poisoning? How many buildings does food poisoning destroy in a typical day? What is the economic damage to the nation from that single day of food poisoning?
As anyone with a teeny bit of experience in risk management and mitigation will tell you, the magnitude of the outcome must be looked at along with the likelyhood.
It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.
And anyone with a teensy bit of experience in investment will tell you that you have to look at your longterm growth and health, not attempt to immediately make back every cent that you lose. We made some poor investments post 9/11 and we lost our shirt.
Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.
Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.
Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.
One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.
9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.
Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?
Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.
Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.
Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.
One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.
9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.
Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?
Evidently your memory doesn't go back very far.
The recession of 2002-2004.
Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.
Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.
Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.
One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.
9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.
Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?
Evidently your memory doesn't go back very far.
The recession of 2002-2004.
No... thats not what i asked. I asked HOW did it throw us into recession, not when was the recession.
But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.
Are you dead from 9/11? Is your family? Your busdriver? Your dentist? Anyone you even know? 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack in modern history and a decade later none of it did anything to us except what we did to ourselves (2 invasions and the destruction of our ideals). The deaths? A rounding error in annual heart disease deaths, and I don't have to hear about that gak every day on the news. We didn't invade japan because toyota cars were involved in more deaths then terrorists in the worst year for terrorism in history.
This argument is bs. 9/11 was special because it's the sacred flower, not because it was numerically meaningful. In it's wake we lost more soldiers then died that day and we're no safer. We took all of the goodwill engendered and threw it in the trash.
Yeah, actually my wife and I lost a good budy in the pentagon that day. Thanks for trivializing it.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but no amount of "Captain Ahabing" is going to bring him back.
I mean, if he would have been mauled to death by a bear, would you be calling for all bears to be brought to extinction? If he died in a car accident, would you be demanding banning of cars?
Yeah, actually my wife and I lost a good budy in the pentagon that day. Thanks for trivializing it.
If that's true that's a shame and I'm sorry, but if it's not you'd be the fifth or sixth person to lie to me about this very thing. That said, I know two people that died in Car Accidents and two that died from heart disease and those don't get half the fething attention 9/11 or terrorism in general does. So hey, everyone gets a bit trivialized these days. Wouldn't it be nice if we could handle these things with the focus they deserve.
Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.
Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.
Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.
One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.
9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.
Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?
Evidently your memory doesn't go back very far.
The recession of 2002-2004.
No... thats not what i asked. I asked HOW did it throw us into recession, not when was the recession.
The banks certainly didn't throw us into recession.
How did 9/11 cause the recession? Seriously, are you working on all thrusters here? Four to five (i forget how many) buildings in the heart of New York fell. Air travel ceased and revenues never recovered.
The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
"The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession," said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.
The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
"The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession," said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.
"The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001," the panel said in its announcement. "A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession."
Interesting... so the recession officially started Before 9/11? sooo... 9/11 certainly didn't help things... but it didn't "throw us into recession"
Edit...
the last paragrah is telling also...
The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates 10 times this year - three of those since Sept. 11 - in a bid to keep consumers spending and help lessen the severity of a downturn.
Home » Investing » Economic Impacts of 9/11 over the Past Decade Brent graduated from UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business with an MBA and holds a BS in Political Science from the University of Utah. Brent Pace Economic Impacts of 9/11 over the Past Decade Posted On: 09/14/11 8:09 AM | Written By: Brent Pace Share this story 0 inShare Get Financial Alerts
It can be difficult to get inside the mind of a terrorist and understand what would make someone commit these unspeakable violent acts. It has now been ten years since the September 11, 2001 attacks. When Osama bin Laden perpetrated the attacks, it became clear that he wanted to strike at the heart of America and cause fear to enter into the heart of every American. A secondary, and quite important goal, was to bankrupt America. Bankrupting America would come through all of the expenses America would incur protecting itself from terrorism.
If that was one of Osama bin Laden’s goals, the question is: did he succeed? What exactly has he cost us in economic terms? Clearly no measure or price can be put on the human lives lost. But we can attempt to quantify other monetary costs to America and see just how 9/11 has altered America’s economic course over the decade.
Defense Spending The most obvious expenditure inspired by 9/11 was the increase in defense expenditures. In 2011 America is projected to spend about $708 billion on defense, which is approximately 4.8% of our gross domestic product. That budget means that America spends more on defense than the next seventeen biggest defense spenders combined. The $700+ billion in 2011 is comprised of a national defense budget of about $549 billion and a war supplemental budget of about $159 billion.
In 2001, America spent approximately $303 billion on defense with $13 billion in war supplemental spending. In the ten years since 9/11, our spending on defense has increased by approximately 124%, with a compound annual growth rate of approximately 8.4% per year. By any stretch, those are numbers that far outstrip inflation. The war supplemental spending alone since 2001 totals a staggering $1.19 trillion.
However, we can’t attribute all of the increase in spending simply to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. As the cold war wound down in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, President Clinton and Congress drew back defense spending. Around 1998 the spending (adjusted for inflation) started to pick up again. Core national defense spending increased by 81% since 2001, for a compounded annual growth rate of 6.1%. That number is still well above inflation, but not ridiculous when you look back to 1990 when US defense spending was just over $400 billion as the cold war wound down.
Lost Productivity Another major impact of 9/11 was the lost productivity. IAGS.org estimates that the cleanup, property damages, and infrastructure damages amounted to more than $15 billion. In addition, they estimate over $17 billion in lost wages, another $40 billion of insurance losses, $40 billion in federal emergency funds (including airport security increases), and $10 billion in losses in air traffic.
Despite the losses above, which are significant, at most they total $122 billion. America’s GDP in 2001 was around $10 trillion dollars. Although the attacks took an immense psychological toll on America, ultimately the productivity effects were mostly localized to New York City and Washington, D.C. In fact, the economy had positive GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2001 after negative growth in the previous quarter.
Stock Market Losses The stock market experienced some wild fluctuations after September 11th. The day before the attacks the Dow Jones closed at 9,605.51. When the market re-opened a week later, it opened about 300 points off the previous close and continued a downward trend. By October 1st the Dow closed at 8,836.83. Then again, by the end of November, the Dow was back above 9,851. Although markets became more volatile, it was clear that investors did not view the long term health of the American economy as being impaired by the heinous acts of September 11th.
The Reality Of the three factors considered above (defense spending, lost productivity, the stock market) only defense spending has both a clear correlation to and lasting impact from 9/11. However, even the defense spending increases since 9/11 might not be as dramatic as they seem when viewed in light of long term trends of 20 or more years. Certainly the overall impacts of 9/11 are in the trillions, but with an economy that boasts a GDP of over $15 trillion, the most hurtful of the impacts have been the immeasurable loss of human life and the psychological impacts of the attacks themselves.
The article didn't state recession, it stated came of its high.
So you've affirmed you weren't an adult at the time and don't actually know what you're talking about. That coincides with the food poisoning nonsense.
Frazzled wrote:The article didn't state recession, it stated came of its high.
So you've affirmed you weren't an adult at the time and don't actually know what you're talking about. That coincides with the food poisoning nonsense.
Backpedaling doesn't actually make the bike go backwards.
Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.
Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.
Gladly. Grief is no excuse for stupidity.
So now we've reversed the situation, with the civilian's family being crippled with grief for the rest of their life, while the terrorist is off the hook.
How is this a victory?
:edit: I just noticed that you're not American. Ummm... Crap. Replace all instance of the world America with england and make it slightly more sarcastic, but not much. Sun never sets, wot wot, cherrio.
Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.
Gladly. Grief is no excuse for stupidity.
So now we've reversed the situation, with the civilian's family being crippled with grief for the rest of their life, while the terrorist is off the hook.
How is this a victory?
You're right. Bin Laden walked off into the sunset laughing the entire way, due to not having the provision allotted for in this bill, just most recently passed. If only we would have had it 10 years ago.
You act like everyone who gets stuffed in a concrete box by the secretive groups that determine who gets stuffed where-- denied any and all rights-- is guilty.
No. I argue that the government should file charges against them. Build a case against them. Drop the fething hammer on them and make them suffer life in prison or even hang the fethers-- if they're guilty. Because we aren't tyrannical assclowns.
You're right. Bin Laden walked off into the sunset laughing the entire way, due to not having the provision allotted for in this bill, just most recently passed. If only we would have had it 10 years ago.
He almost did thanks to that disgusting Pakistan. Good thing something stood up to pakistan though.
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
But not everyone accused is guilty.
You act like everyone who gets stuffed in a concrete box-- denied any and all rights-- is guilty.
Quote: True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.
Gladly. Grief is no excuse for stupidity.
So now we've reversed the situation, with the civilian's family being crippled with grief for the rest of their life, while the terrorist is off the hook.
How is this a victory?
:edit: I just noticed that you're not American. Ummm... Crap. Replace all instance of the world America with england and make it slightly more sarcastic, but not much. Sun never sets, wot wot, cherrio.
Good move assuming I'm english.
Remember kids, in star wars there is only the darkside and the jedi that oppose them. There is no middle ground or room for policy that addresses both points!
There is no middle ground or room for policy that addresses both points!
I'd love that. But nobody has put up a competent idea like that.
I did. I did two pages ago. The middle ground Idea is hunt down and prosecute terrorists as the international criminals that they are, not treat them and their sympathizers as a foreign military body without state representation that can be interred forever and be treated in any way we want. Capture them, try them, jail them if they're guilty. None of this extraordinary rendition bs. If they're tried and are guilty then kill them if applicable. Kill them with a missile if they escaped or were tried in absentia.
But don't skip the rule of law just because it's inconvenient and you're scared.
Mr Hyena wrote:You mean the idea that would involve dealing with the suspects after they've already blown up the place?
I don't know how it works in the UK, but here, conspiracy to commit acts of violence-- especially great acts of violence-- is also a crime. And I don't know how it works in the UK, but the USA isn't so weak and pathetic that the only way we can possibly catch criminals is through tossing random people in a concrete box without a trial or any civil rights and letting them rot until they admit guilt.
People make jokes about our government, but we still hire some of the best-- if not THE best-- investigative minds in the entirety of the human population, and they find criminals, find plots, fend off terrorists, and put people in jail, without having to resort to indefinite detention without a trial.
There will always be some that slip through the cracks. No amount of security measures will prevent this. There is no such thing as 100% secure.
I think some people forget that the Imperium of Man is a fictional world for a wargame, and not an aspirational goalpost.
As for 9/11 causing recession and war, that was something we did to ourselves. Worse, that was what Bin Laden wanted, and we played right into it. That is what makes me the most angry.
Bin Laden basically wanted to tarpit us, and look ten years later... it worked! Terrorists won, because some people hate the American ideals. The problem was the people that hated American ideals happen to live in America and aren't even (knowing) aligned with Al-Qaeda.
People make jokes about our government, but we still hire some of the best-- if not THE best-- investigative minds in the entirety of the human population, and they find criminals, find plots, fend off terrorists, and put people in jail, without having to resort to indefinite detention without a trial.
Want to throw out...Mossad...Scotland Yard...
So where exactly are we at on this rollercoaster? Are we still stuck on Enemy Combatant and Unlawful Combatant? How they fall under UCMJ/Laws of War? Extrodinary Rendition? Enhance Interrogation compare to Actual Torture? Recession of 2001? Of course some people forgot to read the prt that if 9/11 didn't happen we could have curbed it. You all do know UCMJ is federal law to?
Humane methods are much more effective in the real world. Funny thing, we have, and have had for decades, professional military interrogators who don't use torture and who get results. Let's let one of them explain it:
As I said when there is t i m e humane methods should be taken, lets look at this quote of yours:
One has to "go to school" on each captive. Who is he? Can I communicate with him in his language? What are his core beliefs? His loves? Hates? Fears? Where do his loyalties lie? Does he have a family, an inflated ego, perhaps some other core vulnerability? Does he have a hobby or some passion that might get him talking? What do we know about his activities before he fell into our hands? What about his religion? Sect? Tribe? Culture? Or the history of his movement? What have other captives in our hands said about him? Did he have documents or a computer that were seized with him? What drives this unique individual?
How long time does this require, to learn all about someones psyche in depth to be able to expertly use all those hidden weaknesses?
So again, what about when time is of the essence?
Quotes are good but...they still haven't detailed exactly how they get them to talk. They say they pamper them...somehow that gets them to talk?
That...defies all logic.
While I´m sure a real psychology pro can use mild methods to break down almost anyone this takes a lot of time, time that might not always be available.
Heres a suggestion. How about you all man the feth up and learn to take your licks instead of burning the constitution and the concept of human rights for the possibility of another five minutes of safety. It's cowardly, and you're no better then them when you stoop to their tactics.
I take it as a no then, you simply are unable to answer up to your own fluffy indie music gak. All you have is criticism and empty pink-o liberal propaganda. Not surprised but ok gottit.
Apparantly its better to be blown up in a terror attack than to advocate torture.
Something like that yes, according to indie Shuma here we should start acting all sensitive and cozy and then we can hope that no whackjob out there who hates for his own reasons will choose to do us any harm.
Should he choose to harm us then we better hope enough time is given to have an army of gentle psychologists learning everything there is about him so he can be persuaded with intellectual guile to spill the beans.
If not then we get blown up but hey, its better then being insensitive to someone else or to lose a step on the moral ladder right?
It's also kinda gakky that we would break our own basic moral code of beliefs every time a stressful situation comes up
Yeah god forbid we are to break your inflated sense of superior morality if a lot of our lives are at stake in a little time. As long as someone else then you die I guess you can afford being oh so moral.
I see little difference between you and the Iranian regime, perfectly willing to fight to the last palestinian.
Societal roles Shuma, try giving them a good hard look. Civilians are not supposed to defend themselves, that's why we pay taxes to a government that swears to protect us. Its similar to the feudal system where a lord would protect his peasants so long as they swore allegiance to him and followed his rules.
Heh, at least you lucky bastards are allowed to carry guns. Over here in eurowhussieland we are all being good little socialist neutered mice...and then nobody ever dares mention the Switzerland in fear that we might start to get ideas.
Maybe YOUR society, but here in Texas, society expects to be able to defend itself alongside the defenses carried out by the state...
Wish we had such a healthy view over here as well.
I take it as a no then, you simply are unable to answer up to your own fluffy indie music gak. All you have is criticism and empty pink-o liberal propaganda. Not surprised but ok gottit.
Clearly being unwilling to break our own laws and sacrifice our own human decency to prevent theoretical attacks makes me a fuffy indy music little flower child. You know why I don't debate with you? When I'll happily do it with sebby or frazzled or that dog guy? It's because you're fundamentally unable to handle opinions that contain nuance.
Something like that yes, according to indie Shuma here we should start acting all sensitive and cozy and then we can hope that no whackjob out there who hates for his own reasons will choose to do us any harm. Should he choose to harm us then we better hope enough time is given to have an army of gentle psychologists learning everything there is about him so he can be persuaded with intellectual guile to spill the beans. If not then we get blown up but hey, its better then being insensitive to someone else or to lose a step on the moral ladder right?
gak like this right here. This is idiotic bull gak. I didn't say that. When you read what I typed that isn't what you read. but since that doesn't and has never in any thread mattered to you, you're happy to continue building some sort of fething unicorn castle of liberal weakness so that you can seem strong, despite the fact that I'm calling the things you advocate cowardly and weak directly.
Wish we had such a healthy view over here as well.
Which is funny, because in almost every metric from education to productivity they're inferior in texas. Want to be a cowboy that bad?
Jihadin wrote:So where exactly are we at on this rollercoaster?
I am where I've always been at.
Find 'em, charge 'em, investigate 'em (or investigate and charge, if possible-- always good to have the best case as you can early on), convict 'em, slam the hammer of justice on 'em-- or let 'em go as innocent (this does not preclude more investigation of course). It's not only the moral way, it's also the best way.
Clearly being unwilling to break our own laws and sacrifice our own human decency to prevent theoretical attacks makes me a fuffy indy music little flower child. You know why I don't debate with you? When I'll happily do it with sebby or frazzled or that dog guy? It's because you're fundamentally unable to handle opinions that contain nuance.
I cant debate with someone as stuck on the extreme black-white end like you.
You just keep supporting the death of your fellow countrymen to buy your moral high ground with. I find that absolutely disgusting however.
gak like this right here. This is idiotic bull gak. I didn't say that. When you read what I typed that isn't what you read. but since that doesn't and has never in any thread mattered to you, you're happy to continue building some sort of fething unicorn castle of liberal weakness so that you can seem strong, despite the fact that I'm calling the things you advocate cowardly and weak directly.
I´m still waiting for you to present a viable solution to make a terrorist spill the beans in little time while not retorting to those extremely evil and society destroying methods of *gasp* hitting him.
Oh, you cant, well that´s alright I guess as long as someone else gets blown up so you can afford to live in your fluffy dream of a perfectly moral society.
Besides you "forgot" to include my repeated statement that I do not advocate torture for the sake of it nor do I advocate it if other means and the time for them are available but it´s ok, in your frothing attempts to portrait me as evil impersonated I guess you can be allowed a certain leeway.
Clearly being unwilling to break our own laws and sacrifice our own human decency to prevent theoretical attacks makes me a fuffy indy music little flower child. You know why I don't debate with you? When I'll happily do it with sebby or frazzled or that dog guy? It's because you're fundamentally unable to handle opinions that contain nuance.
I cant debate with someone as stuck on the extreme black-white end like you.
You just keep supporting the death of your fellow countrymen to buy your moral high ground with. I find that absolutely disgusting however.
gak like this right here. This is idiotic bull gak. I didn't say that. When you read what I typed that isn't what you read. but since that doesn't and has never in any thread mattered to you, you're happy to continue building some sort of fething unicorn castle of liberal weakness so that you can seem strong, despite the fact that I'm calling the things you advocate cowardly and weak directly.
I´m still waiting for you to present a viable solution to make a terrorist spill the beans in little time while not retorting to those extremely evil and society destroying methods of *gasp* hitting him.
Oh, you cant, well that´s alright I guess as long as someone else gets blown up so you can afford to live in your fluffy dream of a perfectly moral society.
Besides you "forgot" to include my repeated statement that I do not advocate torture for the sake of it nor do I advocate it if other means and the time for them are available but it´s ok, in your frothing attempts to portrait me as evil impersonated I guess you can be allowed a certain leeway.
LOL unicorn castle of liberal weakness... CAUSE the only option is death... cake or death?
I cant debate with someone as stuck on the extreme black-white end like you.
Yeah, I'm sure it's tough to handle that crayon drawing of me you've got scrawled on your monitor.
You just keep supporting the death of your fellow countrymen to buy your moral high ground with. I find that absolutely disgusting however.
Then what makes you any better then the terrorists? Certainly not your ideals. Not your compassion. Is it your wallet? How cold it is outside your house? Or is this just some sort of knock down drag out war that will only end when everyone outside you country is dead?
I´m still waiting for you to present a viable solution to make a terrorist spill the beans in little time while not retorting to those extremely evil and society destroying methods of *gasp* hitting him.
Take the hit. I've said it a half dozen times. You can't stop every terrorist attack and terrorism is a meaninglessly small contributor to the death statistic in any given western nation. So grow a pair, put on some fething pants, and just deal with it.
Oh, you cant.
Sure I can. I have repeatedly.
well that´s alright I guess as long as someone else gets blown up so you can afford to live in your fluffy dream of a perfectly moral society.
You can have freedom or safety, not both. the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. When you become unwilling to spill blood, your enemies and your own, in defense of the rights fo your fellow man then you have no right to defend yourself at all. You become no better then those who you think evil.
Besides you "forgot" to include my repeated statement that I do not advocate torture for the sake of it nor do I advocate it if other means and the time for them are available but it´s ok, in your frothing attempts to portrait me as evil impersonated I guess you can be allowed a certain leeway.
At least I don't invent quotes and then attribute them to you in 50% of my posts.
-Death...noImeancake!
-Naanaa, you said death.
-But I meant cake.
-Alright then but just because we are the church of England.
Yeah, I'm sure it's tough to handle that crayon drawing of me you've got scrawled on your monitor.
As long as you dont eat them crayons in your bible class I´m happy for ya.
Then what makes you any better then the terrorists? Certainly not your ideals. Not your compassion. Is it your wallet? How cold it is outside your house? Or is this just some sort of knock down drag out war that will only end when everyone outside you country is dead?
I want to save more lives then I take, if taking one life in order to save 1000 unless time and other options are available then by all means do save 999 people.
How do people around you react by the way, knowing you would gladly send them of to be blown up as long as it can make your moral values untouched?
Take the hit. I've said it a half dozen times. You can't stop every terrorist attack and terrorism is a meaninglessly small contributor to the death statistic in any given western nation. So grow a pair, put on some fething pants, and just deal with it.
And yet you sadly fail to see yourself in the exact same reasoning...
You can´t stop every little transgression and unjust thing in a country so what that one person gets hurt if it saves lives. Grow a pair, put on some fething pants, and just deal with it!
lol Didnt like the train going both ways huh.
When you become unwilling to spill blood, your enemies and your own, in defense of the rights fo your fellow man then you have no right to defend yourself at all.
Nice quotes.
As long as you spill the blood of your fellow citizens rather then apply pressure to save them its alright with you. Grow a pair was it?
At least I don't invent quotes and then attribute them to you in 50% of my posts.
True, you simply "forget" to mention inconvenient facts.
I´m certain your could do much more advocating moral human rights in these s**t holes of countries then whine about someone not getting their halal food properly served in the states.
Or do you only pick your battles where they feel easy for you and where you are supported?
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
So questioned the man who just got done telling us that indefinitely holding and torturing other people merely suspected of wanting to poke holes in his people was okay because, after all, is anyone really innocent?
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
So questioned the man who just got done telling us that indefinitely holding and torturing other people merely suspected of wanting to poke holes in his people was okay because, after all, is anyone really innocent?
When it comes down to it, people either support our people dying or the enemy.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
So questioned the man who just got done telling us that indefinitely holding and torturing other people merely suspected of wanting to poke holes in his people was okay because, after all, is anyone really innocent?
When it comes down to it, people either support our people dying or the enemy.
I don't think theres any room for middle ground.
Then why don't you advocate killing everyone in the middle east? If you don't advocate that then you're advocating the continued deaths of our countrymen at their hands. There is no room for middle ground after all. Lets take your philosophy to it's obvious conclusion.
I rather not have some of you all experience that. You already have some here that's been through that and philosophy goes out the window when the bullets fly from someone that's quite motivated to kill you for what he believes in
Jihadin wrote:I rather not have some of you all experience that. You already have some here that's been through that and philosophy goes out the window when the bullets fly from someone that's quite motivated to kill you for what he believes in
It is more than self defense. A soldier can be called on to be the aggressor and hunt down and kill the enemy. Frankly in an ideal situation the bad guy ends up very dead and never had a chance to fire. Fair fight does not apply.
It's been an.... interesting thread with all the usual positions held by the usual people. I actually agree with Shuma (for once).
A little background I guess is in order. I've been in the Army ten years with four deployments to Iraq and have handled detainees (although my involvement ended when they were turned over to MPs/Interrogators for confinement/interrogation). I have also attended SERE school, and I can tell you for a fact that water boarding is no longer used (if it ever was).
All I'll say about interrogation is that there are literally hundreds of ways to coerce a person into giving you the information you want without resorting to beating, waterboarding, or causing lasting physical harm to them. As Mannahnin already pointed out, there are numerous officers, interrogators, and experts who have come out against torture and some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques that have been employed.
Condoning that behavior by inaction cedes the moral high-ground and creates the perfect propaganda tool for both extremists and anyone who may disagree with our actions with which to bludgeon us.
Further more, it is a morale killer. A large part of getting a soldier ready to kill the enemy is to dehumanize him. That is accomplished through very many clever and subtle (or not so subtle) ways. The other part of making a soldier fight is to instill in him the conviction that his cause is just and right while his enemy's cause is cruel and immoral. Soldiers today are better educated, more informed, and more professional (in the technical sense) than in years prior. Telling a soldier that what he is doing is right simply because the president or general said so is no longer effective.
Is torture effective? Debatable. Does it save lives? That is also debatable. Increased hatred and the negative press of gitmo/rendition may create more terrorists who successfully carry out attacks than any info we may have obtained through using those techniques.
I for one have never been in the position of having to choose between breaking the law / carrying out an illegal order and saving a life. I would not envy anyone who has to make that call.
Scruffy, SERE definitely did use Waterboarding. Malcolm Nance is another good guy to read on the subject.
Mr. Hyena, Pyriel, do me a favor and read at least one of the articles. Preferably the Herrington one if you have to choose just one.
Traditional nonviolent interrogation techniques do take time, but they work and they don't have the far-reaching moral and strategic failings of torture.
The "ticking time bomb" scenario is practically nonexistent, except in fiction. It was actually invented in a book, Les Centurions which was set in the French occupation of Algeria, and in the book it was used exactly the way current torture apologists use it. As a theoretical excuse to justify brutality and inhuman treatment of the enemy. In real life you don't just happen to catch a bad guy a few hours or days before some catastrophic event, AND you happen to know that bad guy has the info you need. They're not TV villains who monologue once you've caught them and boast about what they know.
Works of fiction, such as the television series 24, often rely on ticking time bomb scenarios for dramatic effect. According to the Parents Television Council, given that each season represents a 24-hour period, Jack Bauer encounters someone who needs torturing to reveal a ticking bomb on average 12 times per day.[7]
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Chief under Bush, declared that 24 "reflects real life", John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who produced the torture memos cited Bauer in support while Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went further, "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?".[7] One of the shows' creators stated:
“Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week.”[1]
The show uses the same techniques that are used by the US against alleged Al-Qaeda suspects. U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and others, objected to the central theme of the show—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—as it had an adverse effect on the training of actual American soldiers by advocating unethical and illegal behavior. As Finnegan said:
“The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ”
He continued,
“The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”[1]
Joe Navarro, one of the F.B.I.’s top experts in questioning techniques, told The New Yorker,
“Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected. You don’t want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems.”[1][8]
Even if it did work a few times, the cost simply isn't worth it. The extremes to which we've gone out of fear are more damaging than the terrorism. If we kidnap and murder innocent people (watch Taxi to the Dark Side sometime), what the heck are we fighting for? And how many of their family members do we MAKE hate us and want to commit acts of terror and murder against us?
Mr Hyena wrote:So...how do we get terrorists to talk?
Use techniques that aren't torture, like those mentioned by Jihadin. To the extent they don't work... then you accept that you don't get the information.
That's kind of the whole point about trying to do the right thing, sometimes it disadvantages you. If doing the right thing was easy and always improved your own situation, everyone would do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/
A VERY good movie that you all should see.
It is about this very dilemma and supports both sides of the argument.
Except, of course, there has never been a ticking time bomb situation in any country, no matter how long they've suffered terrorism. Not one, ever.
On the other hand, the ticking time bomb scenario has been used to justify the use of torture in many countries. In the UK, when torture of IRA suspects became an unofficial policy, it was justified on those grounds. I remember a UK policeman commenting on it years later, and he said the move from 'it's okay if there are lives in peril' to 'it's okay if there might be future lives in peril' to torture becoming part of SOP took a matter of days.
Besides, if the movie situation really did happen, and we needed to really know within an hour where the bomb was planted, and the interrogator tortured the prisoner, we would understand. The point is that situation has never happened, we just like pretending it might, to justify torturing people.
Well, yeah. What's your point? How does the fact that we gave some Japanese soldiers politically motivated exemptions mean anything in relation to the fact that we hung Japanese soldiers for doing something we pretend isn't torture today?
To bad we are exposing our own soldiers to "torture" today then.
We torture them in order to build up their resistance to torture by other forces. Which we would only bother doing if it really was torture. Which it obviously fething is.
But he *gasp* gave up *gasp*
The fact that torture worked is a pretty strong piece of evidence that it's torture.
My personal stance on these things is that IF there is enough time then use humane methods but IF time is of an essence and lives are at stake and the prisoner is known to have information that will help but refuses to talk then bring out the thumb screws to break him down, it´s his own choice.
Given there's never been an instance of time pressure... then you have never supported any instance of torture ever committed. Good to see you're on our side.
One application often killed and the other way doesnt kill but yeah, very trivial differences indeed.
Both are intended to give the individual the sensation of drowning, by drowning him. No amount of internet nonsense is going to change that.
But we let japanese who rutinely performed live biopsies on prisoners deliberately affected with anthrax go with no punishement what so ever.
We let political motivations affect the administration of justice! Apparently this is an argument in favour of us torturing people!
It must be true because one guy says so and got a PTSD.
According to this logic every single SF operator we have must be going around with PTSDs directly after training then.
Interesting.
That's a stupid conclusion. That one person got PTSD from a situation does not mean everyone in that situation will. Particularly when other people have had preparatory work to help them resist the torture.
But the fact that it can give PTSD is a very clear sign that it's torture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:So...die basically?
Umm, yeah. The idea that terrorism is such an immense threat that only torture will protect us is just about single worst understanding of scope I've ever seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:I would rather have less torture, but I don't see workable, realistic alternatives given that the enemy is indoctrinated from birth.
We're better organised. We're better educated. We've got much higher levels of technology. We've got more people and we've got more money. And very few people, even in countries with homegrown terror problems, do not approve of terrorism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:It depends on viewpoints really. While it seems gakky, I would be pretty pissed if the Government didn't attempt to protect my life from terrorists.
But they are. They're invested crazy amount of money in it, and doing all kinds of stuff to prevent terrorism.
There's just a question over whether that should include inflicting pain on a captive person in order to get him to talk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:Would you be able to stand in front of a family who lost someone in such an attack and be able to tell them that straight to their face?
Honour, money etc is no good when your dead.
I would be able to tell them straight up 'no suggested action of terror would have prevented what happened', because it's just plain fething true.
That's kind of the big deal with torture, the situation in which it is justifiable is entirely theoretical, yet we do it anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:And thats good and well. I happen to believe however that there is no society if the people are dead.
You have to understand the scope of what terrorism is. It will not, can not, wipe out all of humanity. It's a car bomb that causes horrible grief for a small number of people. That's horrible, and we should do what can to prevent it, but we need to reality check what we're talking about, and know that terrorism will kill everyone.
Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.
I agree however that it is important to provide evidence once the incident is solved.
The brother of a close friend of mine was honoured for his actions in the wake of the Bali Bombing. I would dearly love for you to tell me who we should have tortured to stop that from happening.
No? No-one? Wasn't someone in captivity who could have told us about the bombing seconds before, if only we'd been willing to torture them?
Then shut up with that guilt trip nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.
And who were we supposed to have tortured to stop that happening? Name one person in captivity, who could have clued us in, if only we'd been willing to torture them.
Come on, if you're so sure torture can stop terrorism, then you must have one name of one person that we should have been torturing just before 9/11.
CptJake wrote:I vaguely remember that some terrorist incident a few years back, maybe in Sept of 2001, that actually did quite a bit of damage to the US, one could be tempted to call it meaningful. Seeing as there were plans for further strikes that didn't get executed for whatever reason, the damage could easily have been worse.
And who were we supposed to have tortured to stop that happening? Name one person in captivity, who could have clued us in, if only we'd been willing to torture them.
Come on, if you're so sure torture can stop terrorism, then you must have one name of one person that we should have been torturing just before 9/11.
Boy, you are the king of out of context. My quote above was in response to the idea that acts of terrorism are insignificant. I assume you read the whole exchange and cherry picked what you wanted.
Does doing this make you feel superior in some way? If not, why do you do it? You don't make a valid point by using quotes out of context.
His (or was it Shuma's?) argument was that terrorism's actual damage is nearly insignificant. Put it next to everyday things like heart disease and car accidents, and you see that the actual danger from terrorism is really quite small. That being the case, the idea of being so afraid of it as a society that we abandon our principles and honor, and compromise our laws and morality to torture people, seems absurd and awful. You offered a counterexample of Sept 11, which was a terrible event, but again once you put the worst terrorist incident that's ever happened to us in perspective next to everyone who's died (Americans, allies, others) in Afghanistan and Iraq since, the losses on Sept 11 start to look remarkably small. Does the pain that we suffered really justify all the pain and death that we've inflicted on others in consequence? The denigration of our military and the torture and deaths of innocents?
Then take into account that Sept 11th could not have been prevented by torturing anyone, and the argument for torture gets even thinner. Sept 11 might have been able to be prevented, but if so it would have been prevented by good police and investigative work, combined with better inter-agency coordination and sharing of intel, It also would have helped if terrorism were a priority or taken seriously by the administration prior to 911, but from what Richard Clarke's written, reports like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US" were not paid much attention to. Okay, we've learned that lesson and we're taking it seriously now. Agencies are cooperating better. Those are good and realistic steps to take. Allowing or advocating torture is not.
BTW, not that it matters, but my father was stationed at the pentagon when it was hit, and my then-GF had two brothers and a sister-in-law working in the towers, one of whom was at Cantor-Fitzgerald and did lose his life.
It was out of context, I have never made the case torture would have prevented 9-11. And 9-11 had a pretty darned big impact on the nation economically, and it could have been worse, and the point that terrorism is not significant is what I was responding to. Compare that one day to a year's worth of traffic accidents or heart attacks or whatever civilian deaths and the sheer magnitude of the incident is clear. It is not the danger/likelyhood of an incident, it is the potential damage caused by an incident that makes the threat of terrorist attacks worse. Again, picture a major port shut down by some area denial attack, or oil refinary capability loss due to an attack. Those hurt the country more than a year's worth of accidental deaths.
To use my quote and challenge me to name the crap bag we could have tortured to prevent 9-11 is taking my quote out of context, and is also frankly asinine as I have not come close on this thread to stating torture prevents anything.
If you want to, go ahead and quote me where I have condoned torture on this thread (or any other). Then use that against me. But the quote sebster used was used out of context, and I honestly think he does that in some warped way to make himself feel better than the rest of us hoi polloi.
CptJake wrote:It was out of context, I have never made the case torture would have prevented 9-11. And 9-11 had a pretty darned big impact on the nation economically, and it could have been worse, and the point that terrorism is not significant is what I was responding to. Compare that one day to a year's worth of traffic accidents or heart attacks or whatever civilian deaths and the sheer magnitude of the incident is clear. It is not the danger/likelyhood of an incident, it is the potential damage caused by an incident that makes the threat of terrorist attacks worse.
The thing is, in itself something of the magnitude of 9/11 isn't as big of a deal (nationally) as it's claimed. It's the knee-jerk actions of society that makes people make bad choices. For example, 9/11 didn't severely weaken the American economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did. What Shuma is arguing (I believe) is that society as a whole needs to stop freaking out whenever something happens and think rationally before responding. I, just like you, have no interest in seeing people die to terrorists, but torture removes any semblance of righteousness and gives terrorists around the world a rallying cause to use against us (us being non-terrorists). If we want to preach the values of liberty and justice, we have to live up to the values ourselves first.
Everyone forget the first attempt at the World Trade Center?
qoute
Ramzi Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after bombing the WTC which spelled out the motive: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." He later stated that he had hoped to kill 250,000 Americans to show them the exact pain they had caused to the Japanese in the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[13]
Just throwing it out there.
You offered a counterexample of Sept 11, which was a terrible event, but again once you put the worst terrorist incident that's ever happened to us in perspective next to everyone who's died (Americans, allies, others) in Afghanistan and Iraq since, the losses on Sept 11 start to look remarkably small. Does the pain that we suffered really justify all the pain and death that we've inflicted on others in consequence? The denigration of our military and the torture and deaths of innocents?
Losses were also small on 7 Dec compared to overall loss of WWII
Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.
Not really since you made 9/11 loss trivial
I do know the dfference and have participated in this war. Its acts of aggression either way. Both are War. One was against countries the other is against organizations with no country alligence
CptJake wrote:Boy, you are the king of out of context. My quote above was in response to the idea that acts of terrorism are insignificant. I assume you read the whole exchange and cherry picked what you wanted.
Does doing this make you feel superior in some way? If not, why do you do it? You don't make a valid point by using quotes out of context.
I was bringing the issue back to the main point in discussion, the need to use torture to prevent terrorism, and pointing out that that no use of terror would have stopped 9/11 anyway. I mean, we can debate whether terrorism is worse than food poisoning, the failure to diagnose and treat cancer in its early stages, or whatever else, but that's a debate about funding priorities, while this debate and it's context is the need to use torture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:It was out of context, I have never made the case torture would have prevented 9-11.
It wasn't out of context, the issue is that you missed the context of the debate in which you were posting.
But it looks like it was just misunderstanding, and it's good news you don't support torture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Losses were also small on 7 Dec compared to overall loss of WWII
And I'll ask the question again, who should we have been torturing to prevent Pearl Harbour?
When talking about 9/11 and Pearl Harbour, it is safe to say if only the intelligence community had been able to summarise the information at hand quickly, put the pieces together as it were, then both could have been prevented. That's the lesson here, the need for better organised intelligence services with greater levels of information sharing.
And the reality is that when you lack those things, no amount of torture is going to help. Nor would torture make you safe anyway, there will always be a risk.
You're on a forum centered around a sci-fi (well, dark space opera) game! Hopefully by the time the sun is dead our descendents will be living around some other ones.
Mannahnin wrote:You're on a forum centered around a sci-fi (well, dark space opera) game! Hopefully by the time the sun is dead our descendents will be living around some other ones.
Hopefully, we have led the great space crusade to the outer fringes of the Galaxy. Genghis Connie has been talking about "to the Ghoul Stars" recently.
Mannahnin wrote:You're on a forum centered around a sci-fi (well, dark space opera) game! Hopefully by the time the sun is dead our descendents will be living around some other ones.
Hopefully, we have led the great space crusade to the outer fringes of the Galaxy. Genghis Connie has been talking about "to the Ghoul Stars" recently.
Mannahnin wrote:You're on a forum centered around a sci-fi (well, dark space opera) game! Hopefully by the time the sun is dead our descendents will be living around some other ones.
Hopefully, we have led the great space crusade to the outer fringes of the Galaxy. Genghis Connie has been talking about "to the Ghoul Stars" recently.
You sure it's not a band on some new Disney show?
Well she did remind me that rocks are not free citizen.
Because the Bill gave him out I mention earlier. He's to ensure basicaly a panel to make sure it doesn't happen. Which in turn becomes their problem not his. Besides if you, by meaning you I mean a bad guy, is out into military custody you much rather be there then in a regular federal pen.
.
