Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Kind of a non-answer.

---

You’re asking me about details of the trade. I’m not an interrogator, so I don’t know how detailed I can explain the process. If you query me on the details of basket weaving you’ll get just as vague a response.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Are you saying that sleep-deprivation is a good kind of torture or are you saying torture them until they can't stand it anymore (which is silly because they could well start lying early and keep lying when they are echausted)?

---

Ah, so there is a distinction between interrogation and extracting confessions. The first, sleep-deprivation, would be a method of interrogation designed to weaken the will of the suspect. The later would be a means of extracting confessions designed to force the suspect to say what you want to hear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I disagree that they knew they would necessarily die. Why else were there all these "tests" to see if someone was actually a witch? The theory was that you'd withstand torture if you were innocent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Okay, honestly. I'm not trying to be irritating, but I have not noticed you explaining the difference. Maybe I didn't catch it from your words.

So, I guess, in the interest of clarity I will request you to be so kind and restate in very specific terms the exact difference is between torturing for a confession and torturing for information. Please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
There is an immediacy and fear of death that we're disconnecting on here. I don't feel torture coercion is appropriate in interrogation for even terrorists who threaten to bomb my hometown.

---

Quote:

---

But as I gather from your statements- It all goes back to INTENT. "Interrogation" is anything that you do to break a person with the intent of getting the truth. That COULD include electric shock, or boiling oil, if in the eyes of the interrogator it was necessary or helpful. The one thing it COULDN'T include is death, because at that point no more information is available. (Unless of course the interrogator thought that all useful information had been extracted and simply didn't want the victim to go squealing to the press later.) Whereas "extracting a confession" is anything you can do to break a person with the INTENT of getting them to tell you what you want to hear!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I disagree that they knew they would necessarily die. Why else were there all these "tests" to see if someone was actually a witch? The theory was that you'd withstand torture if you were innocent.

---

You mean like dunking a suspected witch under water and if they didn’t drown they were innocent? The tests were designed to kill you, and if they didn’t you were a convicted witch, and condemned to die.

---

Quote:

---

The difference lies in the intent. If your intent is to extract a confession then the most painful and damaging techniques will rending results, but if your intent is to find information, then it doesn’t do a lot of good to use those kinds of methods. The methods you want to use are those that result in mental exhaustion to break the will of the suspect. It would seem that inflicting injury, at the very least, would be counterproductive.

---

Quote:

---

First of all, I'd like to wag my finger at some of you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Does that it might save lives make it right ?

---

No. Nothing makes it right to torture someone for information.

However, the prospect of saving lives creates a legal condition known as "exigent circumstances".

Generally this is recognized situations where there is a reasonable belief that life, property, or evidence may be in jeopardy. If this is the case the State may use that as justification to violate a person's Constitutional rights (such as a warrant requirement for entry into a private residence).

"When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry." See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.

The harm is still there, so the mere fact that the lives are on the line does not make it right...rather it mitigates the harm...in effect cancelling out the wrong (ie still not right, but no longer wrong).

In order to effectively judge the correctness of the Bush administration's decsion we need to know the basis of that decision (what they reasonably believed) and the results of the interrogation (terror plots uncovered and lives saved). To that end President Obama should have and should now declassify ALL the memos and records. Should any sort of prosecution be undertaken it is likely those additional memos will be declassified by the Court as they would be essential to the defense.

Frankly, it was irresponsible to declassify the torture memos...but the President chose to do it, now it is completely unreasonable to declassify those without the others to give us the "rest of the story".

Cheney says they stopped a 9/11 second wave attack and saved thousands of lives. If thats true, we deserve to know, if its not...we need to know that too.

Truth is Obama is now in a corner. He's stopped these interrogations, then released the memos, which led to us learning the interrogations were effective in stopping attacks. If we are attacked again then he's completely screwed, if he tries to reverse his policy and it comes out, he's completely screwed. He'd have been better off keeping the whole thing secret so he'd have a card to play should we capture a person with information we need when lives are on the line.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you feel like if the actual act that you are trying to prevent is distant enough then the defense used to prevent it should be less. As the time to the attack grows closer and more immediate does your willingness to be more aggressive in defense become greater?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rappy:

...the Left is hoping and praying ( well, not literally, as they don't really buy into God™)...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The difference is that coercive interrogation techniques are used with the intent of finding information. Witch trials and inquisitions were used with the intent of extracting confessing and then execution.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Finn:

The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.

---

Quote:

---

More empty, gutless lies and rhetoric from the likes of you. It is patently absurd for anyone to believe that skin color, hair thickness , or any way one defines "race" can be shown to hold any level of superiority. Race is bullshit, and any moron who clings to such superficial guides to gauge another person is nothing but a simplistic , useful idiot. I get so damn tired of seeing the RACIST lie perpetuated by the so called enlightened Left.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.

---

Predictably deflective.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Confessed by Finn:

I’m not an interrogator, so I don’t know how detailed I can explain the process. If you query me on the details of basket weaving you’ll get just as vague a response.

---

Quote:

---

"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security,"- Retired admiral Dennis Blair

---

Quote:

---

The difference lies in the intent.

---

Quote:

---

I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.

---

Quote:

---

"But as I gather from your statements- It all goes back to INTENT. "Interrogation" is anything that you do to break a person with the intent of getting the truth. That COULD include electric shock, or boiling oil, if in the eyes of the interrogator it was necessary or helpful. The one thing it COULDN'T include is death, because at that point no more information is available. (Unless of course the interrogator thought that all useful information had been extracted and simply didn't want the victim to go squealing to the press later.) Whereas "extracting a confession" is anything you can do to break a person with the INTENT of getting them to tell you what you want to hear!"

So it has nothing to do with the "means"... which could include anything that the interrogator might think is useful ... and everything to do with the ends? What I gather from your statements is that you wouldn't rule out any technique on moral grounds but simply on whether a particular technique was effective in obtaining the truth? I know that you try to draw a correlation between what is moral and what is effective, but that correlation simply doesn't hold up.

---

Quote:

---

DRAT! Yes, I know... here I am with those terrible questions again! Using the "Gestapo" tactic of asking over and over again, with the intent at getting at the truth!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090422/ts_alt_afp/usattacksmilitaryjusti
cetortureblair_20090422192111

Quote:

---

"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security,"- Retired admiral Dennis Blair

---

Okay, so THAT says that no 9-11 style terrorist attacks were foiled using torture.
That makes AU & Finn look like the bags of hot air they're acting like here.



The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

So torture hasn't really disappeared in the modern age. What have disappeared are forms of torture that leave marks. The police, military investigators, and governments in democratic societies can count on the press and people watching. They know that if a prisoner can't show any marks of torture, people are far less likely to believe his or her story. So as societies have become more open, the art of torture has crept underground and evolved into the chilling new forms - often undetectable - that define torture today.

---

Quote:

---

If there was any doubt that the Left is bat shit crazy, and cares purely for 1 thing and 1 thing only, there's no doubt any longer. The Left's ridiculous, phony and 100% fabricated indignation over non-torture torture is nothing more than a purely partisan, politically driven side show intended for one purpose only - to get more power by demonizing anyone who stands in their way. They don't CARE that Islamo fascists are going to try to kill 1000's more. That's what the Left wing leadership WANTS ! They want to cause crisis after crisis after crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel says, do what could not be done otherwise, w/regards to taking more and more power. From illegal immigration, to gay marriages, to terrorist attacks, the Left is hoping and praying ( well, not literally, as they don't really buy into God™ ) to create such chaos in this country, they'll have no other choice than to remake it in their socialist Utopian template.

---

Quote:

---

And where and how does verification come into this?

---

Quote:

---

Not really. In my mind, torture or extreme coercion or whatever we're calling it is not acceptable at any point. I expect tenacious and continuing investigations into the threat. I want people out there on the ground looking for evidence and clues and leads. I want people in the offices following the communication trail. I want the inside men to learn key info. I'm not going to give up when the interrogation returns little or no usable information. I'm also not going t resort to harm. I am going to keep looking and verifying.

The best defense may be a good offense but that doesn't apply in national security. We can't attack someone because they might hurt us. We can't torture someone because they might know something. We prepare. We learn. We build intelligence. Then we either stop the threat through legal(national and international law) means or defend ourselves. The best defense is preparedness.

---

Quote:

---

In other words, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about any more than the rest of us, whom you accuse of not knowing what we're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
your continued refusal to address the issue really isn't helping your case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't just leave this SO CLOSE to an even 100 posts! (Call me Monk!)


---------------------------------
THERE! I feel better!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
your continued refusal to address the issue really isn't helping your case.

---

He has no case, so much so that he can't even make something up so he can say you have no case.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It is patently absurd for anyone to believe that skin color, hair thickness , or any way one defines "race" can be shown to hold any level of superiority. Race is bullshit, and any moron who clings to such superficial guides to gauge another person is nothing but a simplistic , useful idiot. I get so damn tired of seeing the RACIST lie perpetuated by the so called enlightened Left.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:

We can't take one step into the future until we realize that we are all equal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:

We can't take one step into the future until we realize that we are all equal.

---

The steps can be taken, IMO, just, like, awkwardly.
But I agree in spirit.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, well, that certainly proves it; someone SAID it. That's good enough for me!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- We tortured someone so we could learn about al Qaida's chain of command???? (A chain which morphs as circumstances require.)

---

Quote:

---

AFA decrying killing- I'm pissed off as all hell about the Somali government. In fact, there are a LOT of leaders I think should be locked up and the key thrown away, and in my more base moments I imagine strung up by their balls.

---

Quote:

---

But, to be perfectly honest: We are here to persuade or dissuade each other- a primarily American audience with an American government. There's nothing we can do to the Somali government or for the Somali people, especially when aid is hijacked and aid-workers are held for ransom. Anything we do, we do through our government. That's why the focus is on what OUR GOVERNMENT does.

---

Quote:

---

Hey, One of President Obama's guys said the intelligence was useful, not me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, do you believe in punishment as a deterrent to further crime?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Everyone,

First of all, I'd like to wag my finger at some of you. Finn and I were managing a productive exchange of ideas last night, and I woke up to see a lot of exchanged insults. I thought to myself, "God Damn, why can't these assholes just have a fucking discussion for a change?!" Which, of course, made me as guilty of name calling as everyone else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
AgentR

Quote:

---

And where and how does verification come into this?

---

There's the rub, apparently, AgentR - from all I've been able to determine, it don't.

---

Quote:

---

Signym Gestapo debating tactics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If I were the only one asking for clarification, then I'd think I might be stupid or something. But I'm not the only one

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


So "President Obama’s national intelligence director" would lie about it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Signym Gestapo debating tactics.

---

If I were the only one asking for clarification, then I'd think I might be stupid or something. But I'm not the only one, so the problem must be at your end. I've asked several questions which I think get to the heart of where I don't understand you. One of my questions was:

---

Quote:

---

appreciate the opportunity to have a real discussion on the issue. And there are many others were tried to participate, for which I am grateful, but sometimes it’s just impossible with the likes of kwicko’s trolling and signym Gestapo debating tactics.

---