Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream. How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries. Now I will absolutely joke about glassing the Middle East. That Ground Zero Ocean meme has to be over a decade old now and I giggle every time, but there's a lot of people in the Middle East, and even with the rise of ISIS not even a majority of them desperately need a case of acute onset lead poisoning. I even know some of them. I have friends in Jordan and Kuwait that I treasure greatly. I've even read the book a lot of people are so damn hung up about over there, and you know... with all the men I've buried, I still haven't seen, heard or read one damn thing that makes me say to myself "Yeah, feth it. Let's go burn a village and torture some fethers and see if anything comes out of it. Not like it matters."

Maybe I'm just outdated though.

I personally think that much of the hullabaloo is... misguided. Many comments on my facebook feed regarding this issue equate to: "We killed Nazi's without torture, so why do we need it now??" And my usual response to that is, "We DID have a few people torture Nazi's, you're just not reading about it in People Magazine"

I don't really agree with your "airsoft informants" but I also don't agree with your flip side. We don't really need to torture people to get information anymore, and we sure as hell don't need to wallow in the mud with the other "animals" in the barn yard.

Wait... uh. That's my point. That stooping to torture and other such behavior lowers us to the level of our enemy in a moral sense, and that we don't need to do that. Their point being we should throw out all rules and just kill dem der furriners hurr hurr!

To kill them, it often helps to have intel on who to kill, where they are, and when they will be there.

Often it helps to have intel about their intent for their actions too.

Once in a while, having a live one to interrogate may help facilitate the killing of others (or to facilitate interfering in their op cycle to prevent them killing your guys).

How and where you conduct the interrogations may be an issue, but having interrogations is a good thing.

 CptJake wrote:
To kill them, it often helps to have intel on who to kill, where they are, and when they will be there.

And torture doesn't give you reliable intel. Every study ever done says this.

Often it helps to have intel about their intent for their actions too.

And torture doesn't give you reliable intel. Every study ever done says this.

Once in a while, having a live one to interrogate may help facilitate the killing of others (or to facilitate interfering in their op cycle to prevent them killing your guys).

Interrogating and torturing aren't the same thing. No one is advocating making their lives easier, but we don't need to rely on unreliable methods that make us just as bad as those we criticize for it.

How and where you conduct the interrogations may be an issue, but having interrogations is a good thing.

And no one is arguing against interrogation in the slightest. Interrogation =/= torture.

 CptJake wrote:
To kill them, it often helps to have intel on who to kill, where they are, and when they will be there.

Often it helps to have intel about their intent for their actions too.

Once in a while, having a live one to interrogate may help facilitate the killing of others (or to facilitate interfering in their op cycle to prevent them killing your guys).

How and where you conduct the interrogations may be an issue, but having interrogations is a good thing.

Little Yellow Bird say's to turn over the captured Insurgent IED teams (whoever left alive) to the ANA to find out who the Financier and backers are who brought the explosive material to make a IED/VBIED to be used against Coalition forces. Intel within 48 hours. ANA Detainee Compound 40 min flight from Bagram


Edit

Though we did get pissed when a CIA "Black" FoB was damn near over run by insurgents in RC East in 2010

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"

And?
...!

The "utilitarian" argument is thereby refuted.

When considering a possible course of action its likely effectiveness should be taken into account along with other factors.

Giving the floor over to someone with actual experience in these matters (not to discount intell dweebs and people like me who've been through SERE) but actual POW and torture victim, Senator John McCain.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Giving the floor over to someone with actual experience in these matters (not to discount intell dweebs and people like me who've been through SERE) but actual POW and torture victim, Senator John McCain.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that only three individuals were confirmed to have been water boarded. That the CIA admitted. Wonder if that report mention other techniques that was done by other nations to provide intel.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream.

Right, see the problem here is that you're imposing your ideals on others. For many they aren't fighting "the gaks" because they're bad according to some kind of universal morality, but because they're bad in relativistic or amoral terms which can generally be summarized as: they threaten our interests.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries.

I can think of several concepts of honor which would fully endorse glassing countries for trivial affronts. I also know several current and former members of the military that express the precise sentiment that you solely attribute to fat airsoft enthusiasts, and people who study geopolitics and theories of conflict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

And no one is arguing against interrogation in the slightest. Interrogation =/= torture.

Indeed, whether or not torture is morally wrong may be a relevant question on moral grounds, but its noted lack of effectiveness makes it poor policy regardless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30444679

British intelligence agencies spoke to US counterparts about a report into CIA interrogation before it was published, Downing Street has said.

A spokeswoman did not say the UK had asked for information to be left out - but said if requests were made it was not to hide UK involvement in torture.

No 10 had previously said it had not requested redactions, but it now says any requests would have been made for "national security reasons".

The report found "brutal" tactics used.

The published report, which looked at treatment of detainees in the years after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, is a 525-page summary of a 6,000-page document produced by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The full document remains classified.

Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate committee, said CIA tactics - which included repeated waterboarding, slapping, stress positions and sleep deprivation - amounted to torture.
Ground 'shifting'

The published report contains no reference to UK agencies.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said that on Wednesday "Downing Street said to the best of their knowledge they hadn't asked for any redactions from that report".

But he said the "ground seemed to be shifting" on Thursday, as a Downing Street spokeswoman said there had been a conversation between UK and US intelligence services about the executive summary of the report.

"So it looks as though redactions were requested," our correspondent said.

"But she [the spokeswoman] went on to say these were on the grounds of national security, not on the grounds of British complicity in torture or any British involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the mistreatment of suspects."

Government ministers and UK security and intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 have always said torture would never be used by Britain to extract information.

Parliament's intelligence and security committee is currently examining the question of whether the UK was complicit in the US mistreatment of suspects.

On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he would be open to a full judicial inquiry if the committee failed to answer key questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Who knew

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"

And?
...!

The "utilitarian" argument is thereby refuted.

When considering a possible course of action its likely effectiveness should be taken into account along with other factors.

Read my earlier post.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/626561.page#7421395

You almost NEVER expect 'actionable intelligence' or 'imminent threat intelligence' from detainee interrogations, regardless of the methods used/not used in those interrogations. That type of info has a lifespan often measured in hours and generally no more than days, and by the time you have the detainee in front of the interrogation team the chances of that type of info not having gone past its expiration of usefulness (LTIOV was the term used back when I was on active duty) is slim. To invalidate a program based on this perceived lack of value due to no 'actionable intelligence' is frankly ignorant. There are plenty of reasons to be against the program, you chose one that is a very, very poor reason. Lack of 'actionable intelligence' or 'imminent threat intelligence' is NOT the same thing, not even close to the same thing as effectiveness when it comes to collection from detainees.

All interrogation is coercive. All of it. These guys used methods not really in an attempt to extract info, but in an attempt to break down the detainees will, and used methods (rightly or wrongly) they felt would do that quickly so that they could then begin the long process of drawing out the info they felt the detainees had. Even in the currently allowed DoD/Army manual on interrogations, getting the detainee started is key, and whether using Fear Up Harsh or Ego Down, there are very legitimate reasons you want to 'break' the guy, and allowed methods which enable it. Not every method is for every detainee, and not all detainees need to be 'broken', the interrogation team evaluates each based on many factors to come up with a plan for that specific detainee.

Soa again, basing the effectiveness on the CIA program on lack of 'imminent threat intelligence' is not a good way at all of evaluating the program's effectiveness. Evaluate it on the legality and/or morality of the methods.

Yesterday, I made the point that the torture report was a symptom of a wider malaise, that being the utter failure of the war on terror.

Today, I'm making the point that the torture report is also symptomatic of an intelligence breakdown, and the name of that breakdown is...

Pakistan

Like others on dakka, we've all followed this closely over the years, and yet, it's amazing that Pakistan has gotten lightly off the hook.

We know the Pakistani intelligence bureau was a double agent for the Taliban, we know that it was no coincidence that Bin laden was hiding next door to a military academy, and we know that we knew

And yet, it was still a clusterfeth!

Instead of torturing people, the CIA might have made more breakthrough by not passing on information to an agency that was in cahoots with the very people the CIA were trying to destroy.

 CptJake wrote:

When considering a possible course of action its likely effectiveness should be taken into account along with other factors.

Yep, but the term 'Hail Mary Pass' exists for a reason. Sometimes options with little chance of success become The Option if the perceived/ potential gain (or adverting a perceived/potential loss) is big enough.

It is those 'other factors' that provide context, your initial statement seemed to ignore those 'other factors'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yesterday, I made the point that the torture report was a symptom of a wider malaise, that being the utter failure of the war on terror.

Today, I'm making the point that the torture report is also symptomatic of an intelligence breakdown, and the name of that breakdown is...

Pakistan

Like others on dakka, we've all followed this closely over the years, and yet, it's amazing that Pakistan has gotten lightly off the hook.

We know the Pakistani intelligence bureau was a double agent for the Taliban, we know that it was no coincidence that Bin laden was hiding next door to a military academy, and we know that we knew

And yet, it was still a clusterfeth!

Instead of torturing people, the CIA might have made more breakthrough by not passing on information to an agency that was in cahoots with the very people the CIA were trying to destroy.

Yesterday I read a really good article about Pakistan related to this.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/12/explaining-pakistans-confidence/

"So it looks as though redactions were requested," our correspondent said.

"But she [the spokeswoman] went on to say these were on the grounds of national security, not on the grounds of British complicity in torture or any British involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the mistreatment of suspects."

National security? What are you trying to do, maintain a monopoly on interrogation techniques that don't work? Protect intelligence sources that produce gibberish? Maintain operational secrecy for missions that don't exist?

Torture as it stands should rate as immoral or amoral, trying to justify it should be regarded in the same light. Torture is never justified. Talking to the ARVN guy i know who was there after the fall of Saigon tells me this is so.
he suffered enchanced interrogation techniques.
all you clowns who are so blase about this gak should talk to someone from ARVN who ended up in enemy territory.
AMerica has done the same gak, gak that got a court marshall in 1900 in the phillipines is now ok.
that's all kinds of fethed.

when i think about it beheading someone is barbaric, but torturing them for the greater good is ok. .....yeah


while i'm at it the moral bankruptsy of assassinating people inside others airspace does not figure?

ffs america


From the people i talk with (pakistani middle class) america is not doing itself any favours. another chance of "policeman" moved to enemy.... ffs figure outthis gak.

To be fair Bullockist, we don't have clean hands either. From memory we handed a few guys over to them knowing full well what would happen. Or ASIO has guys sitting in on some sessions. Or something similarly depressing that I've done my best to forget because it left me ashamed to be an Aussie for a short while.

it's the non clean hands that give me the gaks. why are we dragged into this gak?
on what gounds?
does it benefit us?

if there was torture IM ASHAMED MORE THAN ANY ONE


americas imperialist torturers seem to be able to live with9out a problem


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as an ally having someone who miss treats prisoners is embarrassing- having someone who does it at routine is fething terrible.
inept handling of iraq and afganistan do not inspire confidence.

Maybe nuggz can helpyou establish how to live in an occupied territory...he's good at peace.

Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
Does a nation need to torture people to extract information? Yes, I believe we do when the very people that we are fighting could very well be our neighbors.
Do I like the idea of torture? No, however, I must admit that I would be willing to torture another person if the information that was extracted could save lives. I realize that it is not the most reliable way to gather information, but there are times where it is the ONLY way to gather information.
I rather enjoy the people that can sit back and condemn people for doing the hard things in life that make our lives safer. If you have ever had the pleasure of dealing with a sect of people that are willing to not only kill you but your entire family in some of the most gruesome ways possible, then put it up on the internet for others to "enjoy", then you would have a better understanding of why these things must happen.

As far as studies "proving" that torture does not work ... that is educated nonsense. Studies have also shown that red meat is bad for you, then it is good for you, now it is bad for you again. I can take charts and graphs and a study and make it come out to say whatever I want. The point I am trying to make is that torture is unreliable, but it does work. Some people can not be bought, which is what we have done for MANY years, but it too is unreliable.

red meat is bad for you.

otherwise, people will say anything to get out of torture....do you see the issue? If you were tortured, what would you say? I can garauntee it isn't truthfull.iit is what stops the torture.The guy from sydney who was tortured said the same thing.



there is only one country advocating torture in the countries it has conquered.
w
t
f
lemmings.

I told you so, The old fart was right, and nobody listened.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327951.page#2118744

Does anybody remember when the us was pushing the insurgents towards pakistan. The pakistani army was there to guard the border, and make sure no one escaped. suddenly the Kashmir kicked off and the troops were needed there. convenient eh.

from my own observations pakistan shouldbe considered less than reliable....but after the wiork in the area should be 100% reliable......theres's a lesson here....learn it some time.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.

That reason is we don't learn and have never learned. Torture isn't and have never been effective for extracting information. Why does torture continue? The same reason the mooks on this thread say it does if you read into their anger. Not a demand for information, but retribution.

There's some good lines in the move Body of Lies for that.

Roger Ferris: I thought you didn't believe in torture, Hani Pasha.
Hani: This is punishment, my dear. It's a very different thing.

------------

Hani: Torture, it does not work. Under torture, a man will say almost anything to make the pain stop.

One of the follow up lines there is "Urgency does not call for changing methods that work for methods that do not work."

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.

...

Are you seriously suggesting that careful intelligence and medical/academic studies that say torture does not work are of less value that your unsupported personal opinion?

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
Does a nation need to torture people to extract information? Yes, I believe we do when the very people that we are fighting could very well be our neighbors.
Do I like the idea of torture? No, however, I must admit that I would be willing to torture another person if the information that was extracted could save lives. I realize that it is not the most reliable way to gather information, but there are times where it is the ONLY way to gather information.
I rather enjoy the people that can sit back and condemn people for doing the hard things in life that make our lives safer. If you have ever had the pleasure of dealing with a sect of people that are willing to not only kill you but your entire family in some of the most gruesome ways possible, then put it up on the internet for others to "enjoy", then you would have a better understanding of why these things must happen.

As far as studies "proving" that torture does not work ... that is educated nonsense. Studies have also shown that red meat is bad for you, then it is good for you, now it is bad for you again. I can take charts and graphs and a study and make it come out to say whatever I want. The point I am trying to make is that torture is unreliable, but it does work. Some people can not be bought, which is what we have done for MANY years, but it too is unreliable.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Quoting this to memorialize possibly the stupidest and most ignorant thing I have ever seen on Dakka.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.

No, the reason torture continues to happen is because of idiots spouting "common sense" like this. We have known for hundreds of years that torture does not work, unless all you're looking for is video of Abdul Smith admitting he assassinated Lincoln.

Does a nation need to torture people to extract information? Yes, I believe we do when the very people that we are fighting could very well be our neighbors.

No, that is when it is most important to not torture, because if you have decided your neighbours are potential enemies, you can torture people into agreeing with you even if they aren't. Jesus, even when your neighbours really could have been your enemies, back during the goddamn American Civil War they still didn't torture, because torture is useless.

The Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), 24 April 1863 wrote:Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty — that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.

You are a terrible person. I don't expect to talk you out of your idiotic support for torture any less than I might persuade a cowpat not to stink, but I can only hope that nobody reads what you just wrote and thinks you're not spouting bs.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Wait... uh. That's my point. That stooping to torture and other such behavior lowers us to the level of our enemy in a moral sense, and that we don't need to do that. Their point being we should throw out all rules and just kill dem der furriners hurr hurr!

Yeah, I was kind of throwing in my two cents on it.

For the record, I think that "torture" is wrong, but there are somethings which, if done right, produce actual valuable intelligence. A buddy of mine in the army was an interrogator and his two quickest interrogations were pretty spectacular as far as intel value goes. One guy, he simply called by his nickname. The other guy, he borrowed 1SG's "tape" (for the fat test) and proceeded to "measure" the turd for his jump suit. When the guy asked what he was doing, the interpreter said, "ohh, he's just measuring you for your jumpsuit so the guys at guantanamo will have your size when you get there" If that's torture, then I guess I support that limited use of it.

That said, I agree with most of you when we're talking about things like a car battery and jumper leads because it's "field expedient" or having a person "fall down the stairs", etc. It's been proven over and over that physical trauma does not give any reliable results. I was more commenting on how so many people put rose colored glasses on when looking at some things in the human past to say "but we didn't torture people back then!!"

And, I think that torture will remain so long as there are sick and twisted people in those kinds of positions in the world. Obviously, some cultures or groups will continue using less than "civilized" methods on their prisoners, but that should NEVER be an excuse to torture someone. Not even if they are Soviet moles

The measuring for the jumpsuit is a good example of Fear Up Mild.

Right, don't get me wrong here. Interrogation, leaning on guy is fine, there are people who are very good at that out there and hey they don't need a car battery! Torture and interrogation are not the same thing.

Physical torture does not work being anyone going to say anything to get the pain to stop.

Wonder 13 years from now we see a Drone report like the Torture Report from the Republicans

UN: ‘We won’t take ‘no’ for an answer, CIA torture must be investigated’
http://rt.com/op-edge/213331-un-rapporteur-cia-torture/

The release of the so-called CIA torture report will likely create momentum that will lead to justice, UN special rapporteur for torture Juan Mendez told RT. He said the UN will not “take no for an answer” and that each torturous act must be investigated.

The damning report on CIA torture has forced Poland to finally admit that it hosted a secret American prison, with former President Aleksander Kwasniewski coming forward with the revelation. However, Kwasniewski claimed that Polish officials were not informed of the torture tactics being used in the secret jail.
Juan Mendez: I think in fact not only Poland, but many countries cooperated in this immoral, unfair, and illegal practice. And all countries have a responsibility to investigate and come clean. It’s a little hard to believe the president of Poland – he admitted that he allowed the use of secret detention centers for extraordinary renditions and didn’t know that torture happened in that context. I mean, why else would anybody be taken to a secret detention center if it’s not to be tortured? I think all countries that have participated in this should borrow a leaf from the UN Senate Committee on Intelligence and come clean; do an honest, thorough, complete, and impartial investigation of what went on during the extraordinary renditions and the use of black sites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30444679

None of the redactions from a CIA report on interrogation related to British involvement in the mistreatment of prisoners, Number 10 has said.

Downing Street confirmed UK and US intelligence agencies discussed the controversial report before it was published.

But a spokesman insisted any redactions would have been made on "national security grounds".

The report found "brutal" treatment of al-Qaeda suspects in the wake of 9/11.

Senators looked at how the CIA handled detainees in the years after the World Trade Center attacks in 2001. The full document, produced by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, remains classified.

The published report contains no reference to UK agencies.

I was wondering if anything was going to happen.