1
   

Mikey did it

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:09 pm
I've read reports where both FBI and CIA officials have stated that torture doesn't yield reliable evidence. I will google them, but I don't know anything about specific techniques and whether some are more effective than others. Perhaps you could share.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:14 pm
Physical techniques are unreliable, mental techniques can be reliable but then it comes down to how well trained the torturer is.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:15 pm
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Really.


Obviously you have impartial, independant sources for that, correct?

Mind sharing them?

I ask this because I've read a bit about different types of torture and I know many of them yield quite surprising, honest results.


Look at it this way, would you be willing to admit anything under torture? If you were kidnapped by insurgents, what methods would work against you? What would it take to sell out your family, or would you just give them any information, most of it false, to stop the torture?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:18 pm
Adrian wrote:
Physical techniques are unreliable, mental techniques can be reliable but then it comes down to how well trained the torturer is.


Don't mental techniques fall under interrogation, or is there a form of mental torture that is not also physical?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:22 pm
Before we get digressed down a relatively meaningless tangent about whether torture works or not...

This news is a couple of days old and probably warrants its own thread, but I'll drop it in here anyway:

Quote:
An FBI document suggests the president authorized inhumane interrogation methods against Iraqi detainees, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday.

The document is among those obtained from the government by the ACLU in a Freedom of Information Act suit in New York.

A two-page FBI e-mail refers to "a presidential executive order," and contends President Bush directly authorized interrogation techniques that included sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.," The ACLU said.

The FBI e-mail was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander -- Baghdad" to senior FBI officials.

The techniques are "beyond the bounds of FBI practice but within the parameters of the executive order ..." The e-mail said some FBI personnel witnessed the use of the techniques, but did not participate.


That damned liberal media

The full batch of documents is here.

So....

....some FBI guys know that Bush himself personally issued an Executive Order authorizing torture. They ought to go public. They should have gone public months ago.

Now we get to sit back and enjoy watching Bush's people deny everything again.... and see if a copy of any such Executive Order suddenly turns up.

The way the Red Staters rolled over for the "few bad apples" story about Abu Ghraib was one thing. But would America really stand for knowing Bush personally authorized torture?

The fact that I don't know the answer is depressing really, since, you know, torture ought not to be a brainer. But so should going to war based on a mountain of fabricated and faulty intelligence, billions of dollars for no-bid contracts but not enough money for up-armored Humvees, blahblahblah....
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:27 pm
This isn't what I was looking for, but it's an interesting essay.

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/provocations20.htm

Again though, no mention of particular methods.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:32 pm
Bush has extensive experience from his tenure as Texas Governor... he authorized MANY "executions".
Snuffing out "lowlife scum" is easy enough once you label and dehumanize them.
The skill, once acquired, extends itself readily...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:33 pm
I guess our definitions of torture differ.

<shrug>

What you consider torture, I consider discomfort. I couldn't imagine what you'd consider what I think torture is.

Usually agony is involved. Wearing a hood and standing around naked while really tired is hardly torture. Uncomfortable? yes. Humiliating? You bet. Torture? Not the least bit.

Learn about what torture really is.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:38 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I guess our definitions of torture differ.

<shrug>

What you consider torture, I consider discomfort. I couldn't imagine what you'd consider what I think torture is.

Usually agony is involved. Wearing a hood and standing around naked while really tired is hardly torture. Uncomfortable? yes. Humiliating? You bet. Torture? Not the least bit.

Learn about what torture really is.


Would you call rectally impairing with a baton torture? How about suffocation by compression? How about forced homosexual encounters?

Lets call a spade a spade and not try to sugar coat this stuff. . . OK
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:40 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I guess our definitions of torture differ.

<shrug>

What you consider torture, I consider discomfort. I couldn't imagine what you'd consider what I think torture is.

Usually agony is involved. Wearing a hood and standing around naked while really tired is hardly torture. Uncomfortable? yes. Humiliating? You bet. Torture? Not the least bit.

Learn about what torture really is.


OK. But if your techniques aren't considered torture then where's the disagreement? I said torture doesn't produce reliable evidence. You say that some interrogation techniques that don't qualify as torture do produce reliable evidence. OK.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:44 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I guess our definitions of torture differ.

<shrug>

What you consider torture, I consider discomfort. I couldn't imagine what you'd consider what I think torture is.

Usually agony is involved. Wearing a hood and standing around naked while really tired is hardly torture. Uncomfortable? yes. Humiliating? You bet. Torture? Not the least bit.

Learn about what torture really is.


Would you call rectally impairing with a baton torture? How about suffocation by compression? How about forced homosexual encounters?

Lets call a spade a spade and not try to sugar coat this stuff. . . OK


Where does anyone in a leadership capacity give the ok to "rectally impair, suffocate or force homosexuality"?

Let's try to keep on track.

PDiddie has stated that the President himself ok'ed some of the interogation techniques used. Do go start equating that with what you have just said, because that wouldn't quite be fair now would it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:47 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I guess our definitions of torture differ.

<shrug>

What you consider torture, I consider discomfort. I couldn't imagine what you'd consider what I think torture is.

Usually agony is involved. Wearing a hood and standing around naked while really tired is hardly torture. Uncomfortable? yes. Humiliating? You bet. Torture? Not the least bit.

Learn about what torture really is.


OK. But if your techniques aren't considered torture then where's the disagreement? I said torture doesn't produce reliable evidence. You say that some interrogation techniques that don't qualify as torture do produce reliable evidence. OK.


I say they haven't used torture in an official capacity. Only a few thugs who were angry/aggressive/stupid resorted to many of the "tortures" listed amongst these posts.

Stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, humiliation are proven interrogation techniques. That's why they use them.

Beating someone only hardens ones resolve, that's why it is not a good interrogation technique.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I guess our definitions of torture differ.
Learn about what torture really is.




And everyone of Saddam's goons were trained by the CIA - just as every fornicating goon in SAVAK and El Salvador and the Contras and Pinochet's regime were trained by the CIA. And don't try and deny it...

THIS IS WHERE THE WORLD'S BEST THUGS AND TORTURERS COME FROM...

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-school_of_the_americas.jpg
Quote:
The School of the Americas (SOA), in 2001 renamed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation," is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers, located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Initially established in Panama in 1946, it was kicked out of that country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former Panamanian President, Jorge Illueca, stated that the School of the Americas was the "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." The SOA, frequently dubbed the "School of Assassins," has left a trail of blood and suffering in every country where its graduates have returned.

Over its 56 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people. Among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, "disappeared," massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:48 pm
Gee Mr. Stillwater. It almost looks like you know what you are talking about. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:50 pm
well sorry to interrupt the festivities but the point of me starting this topic was the activities described re the impersonation of FBI agents by DOD agents to defer blame if they should be "caught" Had they thought they were being above board in their adtivities why would they need to impersonate another agency hiding their actual affiliation. Did they think they might have been doing something "wrong" in the first place?
you first McG, you seem to lead the defense agenda.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:52 pm
How about starting with a link to your original source Dys?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 06:52 pm
Well, I suppose we could call it hazing, except of course that prisoners are dying, and autopsies are being denied:

Quote:
American commanders in Iraq prevented an autopsy on a detainee who died in U.S. custody with multiple wounds, an Army document made public on Tuesday showed, in a case that rights activists said suggested a prisoner abuse cover-up.

. . .

A Jan. 1, 2004, memo written by Army criminal investigators said 44-year-old Abdul Kareem appeared to be healthy when captured the previous month. But he was discovered dead in his cell only days after being imprisoned, the memo stated.

A medic who examined his body saw multiple wounds, including a head laceration, internal bleeding, bruising on his abdomen and a clear fluid in his right ear. The body was sent to Baghdad for an autopsy to determine the cause of death, but the battalion and group command blocked the procedure without explanation.

"The investigation could not determine the cause of death without the benefit of a forensic autopsy," the memo stated.

Another memo from Army criminal investigators dated Nov. 23, 2003, said Obed Hethere Radad, a prisoner held in Tikrit, was fatally shot without warning by a U.S. Army soldier using an M16 rifle last year on the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Rather than allowing Army criminal investigators to handle the case, an Army commander quickly convened a legal proceeding that resulted in the soldier being demoted in rank and discharged from the military, the memo showed. There was no autopsy and no crime scene evidence was collected.


Reuters
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:03 pm
Hold on, I saw this earlier...


*bwack* US is bad, US is bad *bwack*
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Hold on, I saw this earlier...


*bwack* US is bad, US is bad *bwack*


And there we have it.

So ends the argument.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:13 pm
toon time, and in cell number one we have.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mikey did it
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 09:27:07