A video that sparked my anger

[Jintor]

security contracts, civilian contracts ..damn just pick up a gun and tag along

God damn, Stern, don't condone that shit.

 

[Absinthe]

Some ideologies are worth fighting and, yes, even dying for. You can argue specifics if you want, but that kind of grand, generalizing statement is nonsense.

Nope, we were saving our own asses. Had it been for ideology we would have stepped in 4 years previous when the Rhineland was occupied.

Still an ideology. One of appeasement in the pursuit of world peace. One of pacifism in the face of ruthlessness to avoid conflict.

 

[jondy]

Still an ideology. One of appeasement in the pursuit of world peace. One of pacifism in the face of ruthlessness to avoid conflict.

Chamberlain followed a strategy, not an ideology. Appeasement isn't an ideology. Besides which, no one would die for appeasement in the face of rampant dictatorship, it's a rubbish idea

 

[Absinthe]

Appeasement was the tool for the ideology. The ideology of liberal internationalism that the League of Nations was founded upon was that all future wars could be averted through commerce by rational states. The bottom line was that nobody would ever be willing to risk total war after the Great War.

Appeasement was such an ideology's only solution to a ruthless, powerful player such as Nazi Germany. In a continent where everybody was wary of sparking a global conflict for a second time, those that were willing to take such a risk began to dominate. It was a matter of years until everybody realized it was untenable.

 

[Pulse]

Ahh the League of Nations, the instigator of the infamous phrase 'Slow boat to China'

Appeasement in theory sounded like the only accessible option for hopes of possible unity between all nations across Europe, however, as mentioned above, it ultimately aided Nazi Germany into evolving into the powerful player it had become, as the league had become confused by it's own supposed ideologies, and so had essentially paralysed all hopes of a correct response to what was happening; as they had no idea how to respond.

Appeasement in some cases can be viewed as a one-way ticket to one's own demise, yet in the case of the British navy crew it was a lot like how the League operated; the only plausible means of preventing the escalation of a potentially lethal wide-scale conflict.

I'm blabbering on now so I'll say my final piece; yes the crew could've handled their return with a lot more dignity i.e. not striking deals for books to be wrote about the scenario, however I do believe that they prevented a somewhat inevitable 'mountain out of a mole hill' situation.

 

[Candy art]

why the hell have soldiers patrol the border,if they wont even defend themselfs?Why give them guns then? might as well send a senior citizen group to patrol iraqi waters.

 

[MiccyNarc]

why the hell have soldiers patrol the border,if they wont even defend themselfs?Why give them guns then? might as well send a senior citizen group to patrol iraqi waters.

You're an idiot go away.

 

[Gunner]

You're an idiot go away.

Cue Eff Tea.

 

[Jintor]

why the hell have soldiers patrol the border,if they wont even defend themselfs?Why give them guns then? might as well send a senior citizen group to patrol iraqi waters.

Do you think before you post?

 

[Nemesis6]

When they were kidnapped, they notified the HMS Cornwall, right? I mean that would be the logical thing to do if you were being attacked by enemy ships and you were outgunned. But did the Brits have any other support than the ship they operated from?

The Iranians knew the Brits wouldn't respond, and furthermore, that they were completely spineless and at the mercy of Iran in this incident, as illustrated by Tony Blair when he said "we bear you no ill will." talking about the kidnapping. They're now threatening more kidnappings.

The Iranians pull shit worse than this against the Americans in Iraq, but not overtly in this manner. They knew what could happen if they kidnapped Americans like this. That's probably why they did this: They're willing to see how much shit America's ally can take before responding, and as we found out: They don't really seem to care.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Colonel J is a whiny sissy little bitch.

 

[CptStern]

When they were kidnapped, they notified the HMS Cornwall, right? I mean that would be the logical thing to do if you were being attacked by enemy ships and you were outgunned. But did the Brits have any other support than the ship they operated from?

The Iranians knew the Brits wouldn't respond, and furthermore, that they were completely spineless and at the mercy of Iran in this incident, as illustrated by Tony Blair when he said "we bear you no ill will." talking about the kidnapping. They're now threatening more kidnappings.

The Iranians pull shit worse than this against the Americans in Iraq, but not overtly in this manner. They knew what could happen if they kidnapped Americans like this. That's probably why they did this: They're willing to see how much shit America's ally can take before responding, and as we found out: They don't really seem to care.

yes well here's a far more rational explanation, one that isnt tempered by an immature idiotic world view where everything falls into one of two camps: black or white. .. retaliation for the coalition led kidnappings of Iranian diplomats in iraq is one possibility .. Iran needed a bargaining tool: the US has been applying pressure in many different areas, both through diplomatic channels or otherwise .. even going so far as to fund terror groups bent on overthrowing the government

basically it was a pissing match to see who could come out on top of PR war ..to paint one as evil and the other as good is tantamount to admiting ignorance/stupidy ...at best you're paying lip service to a POV meant to frighten small children or the gullible, not that I expected anything less from you

 

[W4d5Y]

Um, recent interviews told me they avoided violence in order to prevent any sort of escalation. The least thing we need is a shootout between british and iranian guardians of da motherflipping rev0luti0n in such a helpless siuation. They were outnumbered and outgunned, they would have been killed, and getting killed during a military operation (say, it equals dying for your fatherland) is the most stupid thing a sentient human being can do. And after all, if there had been a direct confrontation, Iran would have made something up...The 15 people would certainly have been detained, partly wounded or killed, and stayed in prison, and Ahmadinejad would have had something to mourn about, how the west disobeyed the genova convention and how foul they are, albeit the Iran having tresspassed the maritime borders, instead of their version of the story, that the british did.

Correct me if some stuff isn't comprehensibly formulated, sense within my sentences sometimes suffer due to bit rickety syntax or something.
hey, that's a great signature: Correct me, if I'm wrong. !

 

[Gunner]

The Iranians knew the Brits wouldn't respond, and furthermore, that they were completely spineless and at the mercy of Iran in this incident, as illustrated by Tony Blair when he said "we bear you no ill will." talking about the kidnapping.

When Blair said "We bear you no ill will" he was talking to the Iranian people, not the Iranian government.

 

[Gray Fox]

Did anyone or any organization that is even remotely trustworthy, release info on weather or not they were in Iranian waters.

 

[Pulse]

Did anyone or any organization that is even remotely trustworthy, release info on weather or not they were in Iranian waters.

Last I heard, it was fairly cloudy at the time.

 

[Raxxman]

Surrendering to avoid escalation of conflict in a hopeless cause is one thing.

Going onto TV to read a false (let's just say it is) statement is another.

I can see why soldiers, especially British ones are angered by how quickly they started playing ball with their captures. Now it makes the armed forces look weak, at a time where bombs are going off daily and their comrades in arms are getting killed they sent of a message that basically said 'The British cave in to pressure very easy.' That just makes the situation of every solider in Iraq that more difficult.

 

[gick]

Did anyone or any organization that is even remotely trustworthy, release info on weather or not they were in Iranian waters.

Well the only two organisations that will actually know are the Ministry of Defence and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

What I do remember though, is that the Iranians supposedly provided a set of co-ordinates to the British government, but when they were told that those co-ordinates were actually in Iraqi waters, they changed their minds and gave them a different set.

Surrendering to avoid escalation of conflict in a hopeless cause is one thing.

Going onto TV to read a false (let's just say it is) statement is another.

Its easy for you to say that in the comfort of your own home, with your friends and family around you. These people had been held for days in solitary confinement and sensory deprivation, subjected to mock executions and been told that their friends had been sent home, leaving them alone. They were also told that if they read out the 'confession' they would go home within a week, whereas if they didnt, they would be facing a seven year prison sentence.

When you are put in a postion like that, then you can start making judgements.

 

[Raxxman]

Its easy for you to say that in the comfort of your own home, with your friends and family around you. These people had been held for days in solitary confinement and sensory deprivation, subjected to mock executions and been told that their friends had been sent home, leaving them alone. They were also told that if they read out the 'confession' they would go home within a week, whereas if they didnt, they would be facing a seven year prison sentence.

When you are put in a postion like that, then you can start making judgements.

It's easy for you to say that in the comfort of your own home as opposed to being stationed in Iraq.

So they were exposed to psychological interrogation. Big whoop, they're not the first soldiers in the world, they wont be the last. It's a weak argument to ask me what I'd do when there are countless examples of what soldiers have gone through (say Vietnam, WW2, etc etc).

Nobody expects people to hold out indefinitely to interrogation, however it's expected to hold for a fair time so protocols can be changed and you don't endanger anyone you served with.

Your argument is just a weak attack on my moral fiber, my opinion is formed from a lot of contact with ex mil (Northern Ireland tours) and current mil (serving in Iraq). They feel their lives are more in danger because of these released statements, and what right do you have to argue otherwise?

Oh and Faye just signed a six figure deal to sell her story to the Sun...

 

[CptStern]

It's easy for you to say that in the comfort of your own home as opposed to being stationed in Iraq.

So they were exposed to psychological interrogation. Big whoop, they're not the first soldiers in the world, they wont be the last. It's a weak argument to ask me what I'd do when there are countless examples of what soldiers have gone through (say Vietnam, WW2, etc etc).

Nobody expects people to hold out indefinitely to interrogation, however it's expected to hold for a fair time so protocols can be changed and you don't endanger anyone you served with.

Your argument is just a weak attack on my moral fiber, my opinion is formed from a lot of contact with ex mil (Northern Ireland tours) and current mil (serving in Iraq). They feel their lives are more in danger because of these released statements, and what right do you have to argue otherwise?

Oh and Faye just signed a six figure deal to sell her story to the Sun...

Dan Mitrione ..ex cia torturer often used car batteries to shock subject's lower extremities ..including testicles ..he was so successful at it that he trained south american dictators/despots in it's fine art

knowing this any idiot can say that they can endure toture if they've never had to deal with it ..but I can guarentee live wires applied to the genitals will make even the most idiotic patriot sing like a canary. For anyone, book deal or not, to even question the motivations of the captured soldiers is akin to admitting you are ignorant of the ways of the world

 

[Raxxman]

Dan Mitrione ..ex cia torturer often used car batteries to shock subject's lower extremities ..including testicles ..he was so successful at it that he trained south american dictators/despots in it's fine art

knowing this any idiot can say that they can endure toture if they've never had to deal with it ..but I can guarentee live wires applied to the genitals will make even the most idiotic patriot sing like a canary. For anyone, book deal or not, to even question the motivations of the captured soldiers is akin to admitting you are ignorant of the ways of the world

Coulda shoulda, woulda, but ultimately didn't actually use physical torture, so that points not exactly valid.

Also pointed out it's the speed of the confessions that sparked anger, not that they actually broke.

And contrary to what you're implying, people don't always have a 'ME ME ME OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ME' attitude. Many examples of this occur throughout history and to nonchalantly discard this doesn't make for a good argument.

 

[CptStern]

Coulda shoulda, woulda, but ultimately didn't actually use physical torture, so that points not exactly valid.

who cares? they didnt know that ..for all they knew they would be killed regardles sof what ifo they provided ..if US interrogators can make subjects believe they're going to die, without laying one finger on them, what assurances did these soldiers have that they would meet a more horrible fate?

Also pointed out it's the speed of the confessions that sparked anger, not that they actually broke.

who cares? as if they knew how long they had

And contrary to what you're implying, people don't always have a 'ME ME ME OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ME' attitude. Many examples of this occur throughout history and to nonchalantly discard this doesn't make for a good argument.

yes but only on the big screen do people throw their lives aways for no good reason ...I have a family I would have said anything to make it out alive ..I owe that to my family, you dont know they didnt feel the same way ..again unless you are in that situation you have no clue as to how difficult a decision it may be to make

 

[Absinthe]

Gotta agree with Raxxx.

They weren't experiencing physical torture of that sort. It's one thing to cave in under such pressure, but it's another to do so in order to avoid it entirely. Basically, given the time between their capture and their released statements, there is every indication that these people put up token resistance to save themselves. End result? British military looks spineless, demonstrates an acceptance to be pushed around by an extremist state, and a cheapening of military principles.

It's not like they were on some kind of schedule where if they didn't confess X, they'd be executed at a certain date. As insane as the Iranian government is, they aren't stupid. Any genital electrocution or killing of the captives would have faced retaliation of the quite bloody sort.

What I or any of you people on this forum would do in such a position is totally irrelevant. I'm not a trained member of the military, and chances are that you aren't either. The standards of endurance that they face does not apply to us. Sound unfair? Then don't sign up if you feel you can't handle the increased strain you'll be facing.

 

[CptStern]

Gotta agree with Raxxx.

They weren't experiencing physical torture of that sort. It's one thing to cave in under such pressure, but it's another to do so in order to avoid it entirely. Basically, given the time between their capture and their released statements, there is every indication that these people put up token resistance to save themselves. End result? British military looks spineless, demonstrates an acceptance to be pushed around by an extremist state, and a cheapening of military principles.

again they had no way of knowing this

It's not like they were on some kind of schedule where if they didn't confess X, they'd be executed at a certain date.

again they had no way of knowing this ...a recent example is the Arar case ..even though he was told several times he would be released he wasnt

As insane as the Iranian government is, they aren't stupid. Any genital electrocution or killing of the captives would have faced retaliation of the quite bloody sort.

why? it's not like Iran will retaliate

What I or any of you people on this forum would do in such a position is totally irrelevant. I'm not a trained member of the military, and chances are that you aren't either. The standards of endurance that they face does not apply to us. Sound unfair? Then don't sign up if you feel you can't handle the increased strain you'll be facing.

if this is what terrorists faced from law abiding americans on a humanitarian mission, what hope do rogue states have in playing by the rule book?:


"Spc. ANTHONY LAGOURANIS, Interrogator, US Army, 2001-'05: Part of it is, they were trying to get information, but part of it is also just pure sadism."

"JAMES SCHLESINGER, Secretary of Defense, 1973-'75: [August 24, 2004] There was sadism on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, sadism that was certainly not authorized. It was a kind of Animal House on the night shift."

"BARTON GELLMAN, The Washington Post: Local commanders were making their own decisions about where to draw lines based on a general atmosphere that, "We're taking off the gloves." And so they deliberately use a certain level of violence during the capture, and people were arriving at Bagram with their fingers broken and with bruises. And I've talked to members of some of these teams, and they made sure that the person got roughed up pretty well in the course of the capture."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/etc/script.html

what p[ossible hope could the soldiers have had in the hands of tyrants ..they're probably surprised they didnt arrive in a body bag

 

[Absinthe]

again they had no way of knowing this

Doesn't matter.

again they had no way of knowing this ...a recent example is the Arar case ..even though he was told several times he would be released he wasnt

Doesn't matter.

why? it's not like Iran will retaliate

Relevance? This applies to the rest of your post. I don't know what Abu Ghraib has to do with anything here. British military personnel cracked under the threat of physical violence. They shouldn't have been in the military in the first place. When you enlist, you need to take into account the very real possibility that you may be captured and be required to withold information and resist your captors. Doesn't need to be indefinitely, but an effort should be made. What happened here was that the men and women who were captured complied fully with Iranian theatrics, and there are no signs of any serious attempts at coercion.

 

[Gray Fox]

Resisting would have been useless and unnecessary in this situation. The only ones at risk here were he soldiers, so it's completely ok if they cooperated
What would they have been resisting for and being brave for, there were no other soldiers at risk if they talked or acted though.
The navy sure as hell does not care, they would rather have their men be smart and play along to get out unharmed so they can fight another day then be stupid and get hurt for nothing.

 

[CptStern]

Doesn't matter.



Doesn't matter.

sure it does ..to the soldiers who were captured

Relevance? This applies to the rest of your post. I don't know what Abu Ghraib has to do with anything here. British military personnel cracked under the threat of physical violence. They shouldn't have been in the military in the first place. When you enlist, you need to take into account the very real possibility that you may be captured and be required to withold information and resist your captors. Doesn't need to be indefinitely, but an effort should be made. What happened here was that the men and women who were captured complied fully with Iranian theatrics, and there are no signs of any serious attempts at coercion.

it is relevent ..if 1st world countries with hgumaitarian laws up the wazoo cant conduct interrogations without resorting to the use of torture what hope do rogue nations have in ensuring their prisoners recieve fair treatment ..where they were had to facor in their minds as to what they were likely to endure ..fear is a very good motivator ..i mean if it works on caged prisoners who are interrogated under a "no touch" policy (for the most part) why wouldnt it work in iran? ...

"The Coercive Counterintelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources," (pp 82-104). Under the subheading, "Threats and Fears," the CIA authors note that "the threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain." Under the subheading "Pain," the guidelines discuss the theories behind various thresholds of pain, and recommend that a subject's "resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself" such rather than by direct torture.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/index.htm

 

[Raxxman]

I think before this gets out of hand, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I personally don't think Sterns said anything that reasonably counters my original point (which is the speed in which they capitulated, I chose seven days because I believe that’s how long a pilot is expected to hold out for, as it gives his comrades chance to make anything he knows invalid by changing patrol routes, passwords etc), but this is going to become a pointless slagging match.

 

[Absinthe]

Resisting would have been useless and unnecessary in this situation. The only ones at risk here were he soldiers, so it's completely ok if they cooperated
What would they have been resisting for and being brave for, there were no other soldiers at risk if they talked or acted though.
The navy sure as hell does not care, they would rather have their men be smart and play along to get out unharmed so they can fight another day then be stupid and get hurt for nothing.

And what is there to gain by aiding an Iranian publicity stunt?

Let's got through the sequence of events.

-British personnel are captured.
-Said personnel succumb to captors with little resistance and proceed to lie in compliance with Iranian theatrics.
-Iran demonstrates their ability to capture and coerce with little reprisal and the British military comes off looking pathetic.

In pure objective practice, big whoop. But we do not live in such a world. This event means shitloads to British troops on the ground as well as the world. Iran now has a nice little ego boost and most likely lost much of any incentive they had to discontinue their nuclear program. This shapes all dealings with Iran in the future in a significant way. And the British captives went through the whole thing without lifting a finger in defense.

sure it does ..to the soldiers who were captured

They should have been prepared and willing to resist, even in uncertain circumstances. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be in the military.

it is relevent ..if 1st world countries with hgumaitarian laws up the wazoo cant conduct interrogations without resorting to the use of torture what hope do rogue nations have in ensuring their prisoners recieve fair treatment ..where they were had to facor in their minds as to what they were likely to endure ..fear is a very good motivator ..i mean if it works on caged prisoners who are interrogated under a "no touch" policy (for the most part) why wouldnt it work in iran? ...

I'm no fan of systematic torture, but it shouldn't even have to be said that American usage is far more judicial than Iran's.

Even if America was a happy sunshine land of pacifism, do you honestly think Iran would change? Seriously, are you trying to say that these states use torture because of Abu Ghraib. That's absurd. We aren't role models.
"They factored in their minds what they might endure"... That's it in a nutshell. There was no attempt to even face what might have come to them. They surrendered so easily purely on guesswork. I must repeat - ad nauseum - they had no business being in the military. Under that kind of train of thought, you could enlist in the military and then abstain from combat because you might get badly wounded.

As for interrogation through fear, yes it is effective. But the problem in a world where interrogation never ever comes to physical pain is that eventually it stops being effective. And for that reason, the prospect of physical torture needs to be a valid prospect in certain cases.

 

[Candy art]

You're an idiot go away.

Is that all you got to say?
You haven't said a single relevent thing in this thread.



EDIT:basicly I'm talking about the same thing Absinthe is,He's just able to type it better.I admit I'm to lazy to type out a response as long as that.

 

[Gray Fox]

And what is there to gain by aiding an Iranian publicity stunt?

Let's got through the sequence of events.

-British personnel are captured.
-Said personnel succumb to captors with little resistance and proceed to lie in compliance with Iranian theatrics.
-Iran demonstrates their ability to capture and coerce with little reprisal and the British military comes off looking pathetic.

In pure objective practice, big whoop. But we do not live in such a world. This event means shitloads to British troops on the ground as well as the world. Iran now has a nice little ego boost and most likely lost much of any incentive they had to discontinue their nuclear program. This shapes all dealings with Iran in the future in a significant way. And the British captives went through the whole thing without lifting a finger in defense.

Well iirc they had to go trough the Iranian publicity stunt to get released, that alone makes it worthwhile.

For the rest I think you are looking way to much in to this, it's not much more then a publicity stunt. It's a nice ego boost, but apart from a little embarrassment it doesn't change much. This is not seriously going to alter true politics in the region. If anything history has taught us, is that what politicians say, is very different then what they do, and so are the reasons they do it.

 

[Absinthe]

Maybe. We'll see. But can you at least admit that the total ease of their capture and coercion is rather disconcerting?

 

[W4d5Y]

One lil' question, I don't understand what makes the british forces extortable! Iran never made any demands. Of course they do have some, like we now find out week by week. Iran now tries to make the british administration convince the mighty bush to release the handful of iranian 'diplomats' or whoever they were the americans captured in iraq some time ago.
However, since the released the hostages, there's no proper blackmailing. Iran devided that it was more rewarding for international relations to release the hossies first as an act of 'good will'. Good will after all as we all know they had falsely claimed they had intercepted iranian waters!!
So I presume this incident really doesn't have any proper consequences for the british, apart from the fact the iranian government wants them to let their relations play and make the Amis release their prisoners in turn.
So it has consequences for the Americans, if any at all, not for the british. As far as the british are concerned, every thing is as it ever was, only that we know have something to mock about, laughing at Iran's retarded efforts to make people believe the british forces forced false information given in the british interviews, casting bad light on the former iranian captors!!11 XD

//edit:

Maybe. We'll see. But can you at least admit that the total ease of their capture and coercion is rather disconcerting?

Well yeah, that's what surprised me, too. I can remember they captured germans for a year or so, but british soldiers, they most precious thing they could have gotten, are given away after nothing but two weeks. I imagined there was some kind of unofficial deal behind this, but maybe the iranians are just plain stupid and thought, on an international diplomatic basis, good will could enhance the relations.

 

[Gray Fox]

Maybe. We'll see. But can you at least admit that the total ease of their capture and coercion is rather disconcerting?

It's hard to say, it does seem so. But we were only allowed to see, what the Iranian wanted us to see. A lot could have happened.

 

[CptStern]

They should have been prepared and willing to resist, even in uncertain circumstances. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be in the military.

no matter how well trained everyone has a breaking point

I'm no fan of systematic torture, but it shouldn't even have to be said that American usage is far more judicial than Iran's.

that was my point

Even if America was a happy sunshine land of pacifism, do you honestly think Iran would change? Seriously, are you trying to say that these states use torture because of Abu Ghraib. That's absurd. We aren't role models.

what? I'm not saying that at all ..what I am saying is that if the US cant restrain itself from conducting torture what chance does a rogue state like Iran have of restraining itself?

"They factored in their minds what they might endure"... That's it in a nutshell. There was no attempt to even face what might have come to them. They surrendered so easily purely on guesswork. I must repeat - ad nauseum - they had no business being in the military. Under that kind of train of thought, you could enlist in the military and then abstain from combat because you might get badly wounded.

again you cant make that assessment you dont know what they went through:

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall," Tindell said in an interview with the BBC. "Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote, 'Lads, lads, I think we're going to get executed.

"After that comment someone was sick, and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut. From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo, and then stuffed into a cell and didn't see or speak to anyone for six days. "'

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/NEWS01/704070321/1002/NEWS01

As for interrogation through fear, yes it is effective. But the problem in a world where interrogation never ever comes to physical pain

what? Syria, Iran, China, the US(self-imposed pain, beatings, water boarding), Zaire, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq etc etc etc use physical pain as a method of torture

..eventually it stops being effective. And for that reason, the prospect of physical torture needs to be a valid prospect in certain cases.

I cant believe you of all people said that ..first of all it's the opposite:

Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

and second how can you advocate physical torture or any torture for that matter? you know as well as I do that states do not discriminate between the innocent and guilty ..you're advocating violating basic human rights, that's out of character for you

 

[Absinthe]

no matter how well trained everyone has a breaking point

And they never reached such a point. Or if they did, it was not up to military standards.

what? I'm not saying that at all ..what I am saying is that if the US cant restrain itself from conducting torture what chance does a rogue state like Iran have of restraining itself?

I guess very little. If that's the case, then I guess their time on this planet isn't going to last too much longer. If Iran can't even adopt a bare minimum of human rights protection and ethics, modernity is going to win out on them.

again you cant make that assessment you dont know what they went through:



http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/NEWS01/704070321/1002/NEWS01

My point still stands.

what? Syria, Iran, China, the US(self-imposed pain, beatings, water boarding), Zaire, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq etc etc etc use physical pain as a method of torture

This was in response to your suggestion that interrogation through fear is always sufficient, that being the fear of pain or death. The assumed implication would be that all nations should adopt such methods.

But the abolishment of physical torture essentially renders that method hollow. If there is assurance that such interrogation will never reach the point of physical violence, then there is nothing to fear. For that reason, physical torture needs to be a valid option (albeit sparingly and only in certain cases).

I cant believe you of all people said that ..first of all it's the opposite:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Hence why I said "sparingly and only in certain cases". Physical torture shouldn't be thrown around willy nilly, and I never advocated such a thing.

and second how can you advocate physical torture or any torture for that matter? you know as well as I do that states do not discriminate between the innocent and guilty ..you're advocating violating basic human rights, that's out of character for you

I view physical torture as an ugly reality. A world without torture would have to be a world without conflict, dangerous headbutts of ideology, and ruthless players. We do not live in such a world.
I'd hate to invoke the cliche, but it does have merit. If there was a nuclear bomb set to go off in a major US city, what would be the most efficient way of acquiring its location? Let's say we have in our custody the man responsible for it. He knows where it is and when it's going to go off. We know he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and he may even gloatingly admit to responsibility.

You can physically torture the information out of him and prevent the bomb from detonating, or you can risk the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians.

Any degree of sense should weigh the civilian lives far more heavily than that of a known terrorist. I say "known" because I wish to stress that the main issue I found with Abu Ghraib was that there was seemingly no process for determining if somebody was even guilty, and they practiced indiscriminate torture.

 

[CptStern]

And they never reached such a point. Or if they did, it was not up to military standards.

i dont know what the standards are but it doesnt really matter ..look the Ministry of Intelligence is made up of remanents of Savak, one the worlds most ruthless and brutal gestapo like secret police trained in part by the CIA ..they know what they're doing

I guess very little. If that's the case, then I guess their time on this planet isn't going to last too much longer. If Iran can't even adopt a bare minimum of human rights protection and ethics, modernity is going to win out on them.

again if the US cant be bothered to respect basic human rights what chances do other less sophisticated countries have? Iran isnt alone in this

My point still stands.

forgive me but I'm not seeing what it was ...that they're cowards?

This was in response to your suggestion that interrogation through fear is always sufficient, that being the fear of pain or death. The assumed implication would be that all nations should adopt such methods.

what? no, I'd never advocate any form of torture ..and no touch torture doesnt really exist ..more often than not some form of violence sneaks into the interrogation at some point ..and self imposed pain can be just as brutal as physical torture ..I remember one particular account of a canadian sent to syria ..he had his arms and legs tied behind his back together ..they put 2 poles under his arms and legs and suspended him across 2 chairs ..he was in that position for hours ..he said he blacked out because of the pain and to this day hasnt fully recovered

But the abolishment of physical torture essentially renders that method hollow.

again just because the interrogator doesnt apply live wires to your genitals doesnt mean that pain isnt involved

If there is assurance that such interrogation will never reach the point of physical violence, then there is nothing to fear.

come on man ..there is no such thing ..I remember an interview with a US interogator in Iraq who said they used physical force in most cases ..often before they were even interrogated ..I'll post a link when I find the interview

For that reason, physical torture needs to be a valid option (albeit sparingly and only in certain cases).

I dont agree, especailly as I've already proved that it is not effective

Hence why I said "sparingly and only in certain cases". Physical torture shouldn't be thrown around willy nilly, and I never advocated such a thing.

what criteria? found guilty or suspected of a crime? most often than not being suspected of a crime is enough to put you in the torture seat ..it doesnt matter what safe guards you put in, basic human right is violated when you use torture ..there isnt this bubble vacuum where human rights dont exists ..it must be applied across the board regardless of the circumstances for it to mean something

"yes human right, but only under x circumstances" ..isnt really human rights

I view physical torture as an ugly reality. A world without torture would have to be a world without conflict, dangerous headbutts of ideology, and ruthless players. We do not live in such a world.

come on, torture is not effective ..to advocate mainstrreaming methods used by despots and tyrants you become no better than they are ..you cannot make special circumstances and expect to be excused form criticism usually reserved for rogue nations

I'd hate to invoke the cliche, but it does have merit. If there was a nuclear bomb set to go off in a major US city, what would be the most efficient way of acquiring its location? Let's say we have in our custody the man responsible for it. He knows where it is and when it's going to go off. We know he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and he may even gloatingly admit to responsibility.
You can physically torture the information out of him and prevent the bomb from detonating, or you can risk the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians.

if the queen had balls she'd be king ... :E

you've been watching too many of Jack Baur's adventures .. the chance of that happening are small/next to zero, those circumstances are so extreme that it would make the use of torture in any other circumstance overkill, oh and the chances of him confessing are next to nil if he is gloating:

Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Any degree of sense should weigh the civilian lives far more heavily than that of a known terrorist. I say "known" because I wish to stress that the main issue I found with Abu Ghraib was that there was seemingly no process for determining if somebody was even guilty, and they practiced indiscriminate torture.

but that's the case pretty much everywhere ...more often than not being suspected of a crime is enough to get you an appointment with an interrogator

 

[Absinthe]

i dont know what the standards are but it doesnt really matter ..look the Ministry of Intelligence is made up of remanents of Savak, one the worlds most ruthless and brutal gestapo like secret police trained in part by the CIA ..they know what they're doing

Great. And yet there have been signs or accounts of any physical duress other than cuffing and isolation.

Again, my issue is not that they broke under pressure, but that they made no sign of even resisting.

again if the US cant be bothered to respect basic human rights what chances do other less sophisticated countries have? Iran isnt alone in this

You didn't address me properly. The US, as I previously stated, shows far more respect for human rights than Iran has in its entire history. That goes for a number of other third-world crapholes.
We aren't perfect, and we do screw up majorly. But prior to Bush and his cronies, we have always had a more persistent effort to respect the rights of others. Even with the current administration and all its backwards thinking, we are still lightyears ahead of Iran.

This idea that we need to be perfect before less developed countries even try to act civilized is nonsense, and potentially dangerous. And if they can't even begin to respect the rights of their citizens or prisoners even on a semi-regular basis, then there's no question that a time will come where the Western world will stamp its foot down on them if they start posing a threat to us. It's a total miracle that hasn't happened yet.

This is not a threat. This is not my ideal. This is not what I wish for. But this is how it will go down.

forgive me but I'm not seeing what it was ...that they're cowards?

That with few signs of torture, ignoring the total absence of the physical kind, the personnel were far too eager to comply with Iranian demands. Call it cowardly, disgraceful, or whatever you want. I know it can't possibly be construed as a good thing.

what? no, I'd never advocate any form of torture ..and no touch torture doesnt really exist ..more often than not some form of violence sneaks into the interrogation at some point ..and self imposed pain can be just as brutal as physical torture ..I remember one particular account of a canadian sent to syria ..he had his arms and legs tied behind his back together ..they put 2 poles under his arms and legs and suspended him across 2 chairs ..he was in that position for hours ..he said he blacked out because of the pain and to this day hasnt fully recovered

This is a problem with indiscriminate, faulty use of torture. Not with torture itself.

Torture of innocent civilians or ignorant captives is obviously futile.

I dont agree, especailly as I've already proved that it is not effective

You've proven it's ineffective against people who don't know anything. Well, duh.

It shouldn't even have to be said that nobody's jumping to physical torture as a first recourse.

what criteria? found guilty or suspected of a crime? most often than not being suspected of a crime is enough to put you in the torture seat ..it doesnt matter what safe guards you put in, basic human right is violated when you use torture ..there isnt this bubble vacuum where human rights dont exists ..it must be applied across the board regardless of the circumstances for it to mean something

"yes human right, but only under x circumstances" ..isnt really human rights

Obviously they should be found guilty. You're propping up straw men everywhere, stern. Not once did I advocate torture under suspicion. Not once did I argue that physical torture should replace wholesale torture through fear. Please address what I am saying instead of running off on these tangents.

Yes, suspension of human rights would be a requirement in such cases. I am all for that if the alternative is an unacceptable loss of human life.

come on, torture is not effective ..to advocate mainstrreaming methods used by despots and tyrants you become no better than they are ..you cannot make special circumstances and expect to be excused form criticism usually reserved for rogue nations

I think there is a lot of good, necessary criticism of torture. I'm all for open discussion about it, and I'm willing to hear suggestions. But it's also true that a lot of criticism is severely detached from reality.

If you would value a known terrorist's human rights over the lives of innocent women and children, there's something wrong with your moral framework.

you've been watching too many of Jack Baur's adventures .. the chance of that happening are small/next to zero, those circumstances are so extreme that it would make the use of torture in any other circumstance overkill, oh and the chances of him confessing are next to nil if he is gloating:

Doesn't need to be a nuclear bomb. Could be a train explosive. Could be a little girl stolen away in danger of starving or dehydration. In each scenario, the known guilty party is serving as an impediment to saving an innocent life. If he or she is not willing to cooperate, then I don't see much of a problem with extracting such information from them even it does involve a kick to the teeth.

I think you greatly underestimate the kind of power that pain can hold.

but that's the case pretty much everywhere ...more often than not being suspected of a crime is enough to get you an appointment with an interrogator

Take it up with the justice system. As I have stated numerous times, I am willing to support torture if exercised with judicial usage, sound reasoning, and when lives are directly and imminently at stake. Not some kind of free-for-all method that can be applied to everybody.

Last response, for now at least. I can take quote wars when they're of manageable size, but I can already tell this is snowballing into a scenario where each post is broken into twenty different segments and it will just get tiring. I should be packing right now, actually. =P

 

[CptStern]

Great. And yet there have been signs or accounts of any physical duress other than cuffing and isolation.

again I've pointed out that emotional duress is far more effective than physical pain ..the quote I provided from the US interrogator proves that ..he said 9 out of 10 times they cooperate without any physical force ..and he even says that if they had used force anything they said would be useless as they would say anything to stop the pain ..again pain is not effective

Again, my issue is not that they broke under pressure, but that they made no sign of even resisting.

you dont know that ..only 4 of the 15 confessed ..the rest were written statements that could have been forged for all we know

You didn't address me properly. The US, as I previously stated, shows far more respect for human rights than Iran has in its entire history. That goes for a number of other third-world crapholes.

I have addressed you properly because that has been my point from the very beginning

We aren't perfect, and we do screw up majorly. But prior to Bush and his cronies, we have always had a more persistent effort to respect the rights of others.

well not really true as torture didnt begin with the bush adminstration ..in fact south/central america is littered with past US sdanctioned torture ..from Dan Mitrione to the School of the Americas ..the US has long used torture

Even with the current administration and all its backwards thinking, we are still lightyears ahead of Iran.

yes, again, that was my initial point

This idea that we need to be perfect before less developed countries even try to act civilized is nonsense, and potentially dangerous.

I never implied or said that ..you're missing my point ..all I'm saying is that if the US cant respect human rights what chance do countries ruled by despots or extremism have? nothing more

And if they can't even begin to respect the rights of their citizens or prisoners even on a semi-regular basis, then there's no question that a time will come where the Western world will stamp its foot down on them if they start posing a threat to us. It's a total miracle that hasn't happened yet.

the flip side is that you do the same thing ..except you just have better PR ..you have to apply criteria across the board for it to mean anything

This is not a threat. This is not my ideal. This is not what I wish for. But this is how it will go down.

in every instance where the US participated in regime change it has never been about humanitarian concerns ..or even security concerns. It is always about safeguarding US interests not safe guarding the US

That with few signs of torture, ignoring the total absence of the physical kind, the personnel were far too eager to comply with Iranian demands. Call it cowardly, disgraceful, or whatever you want. I know it can't possibly be construed as a good thing.

again 4 out of the 15, you cant condemn them all because A. you dont know what they went through, and B they didnt act unilaterally

would you still call the female who was left naked in a cell and was told all other prisoners were set free because they were male a coward for confessing? for all you know she could have been threatened with rape ..actually she doesnt have to be threated for the fear to be very real

This is a problem with indiscriminate, faulty use of torture. Not with torture itself.

they both go hand in hand ..you cant separate the act from the morality behind the act

Torture of innocent civilians or ignorant captives is obviously futile.

the overwhelming majority are innocent or ignorant ..taking that logic alone it seem to me that torture is useless because it violates the rights of the innocent more than it punishes the guilty

You've proven it's ineffective against people who don't know anything. Well, duh.

no I proved it ineffective on all subjects not just those that are innocent ..read the washington times piece on torture

It shouldn't even have to be said that nobody's jumping to physical torture as a first recourse.

yes it is ..in fact one of the training manuals specifically asks for the interrogator to make sure the interrogation room has an electrical outlet ...

and pain is always part of an interrogation ..an example would be that forced position I mentioned earlier

Obviously they should be found guilty. You're propping up straw men everywhere, stern. Not once did I advocate torture under suspicion. Not once did I argue that physical torture should replace wholesale torture through fear. Please address what I am saying instead of running off on these tangents.

it isnt a straw man because regardless of what you said the reality is as I described it ...people simply suspected of a crime are tortured ..and it doesnt matter if it's a despotic regime or a seemingly enlightened one ..it still happens

Yes, suspension of human rights would be a requirement in such cases. I am all for that if the alternative is an unacceptable loss of human life.

it's never about that ..here read some of the accounts ...not a single incident talks about a prisoner who had info on a nuke that's about to kill millions ..or anthing even remotely like that. The very fact that they subsequently release prisoners who have been tortured proves that they are indescriminate ..if any of the prisoners were guilty why have only 10 out of hundreds been charged with anything?



http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/I think there is a lot of good, necessary criticism of torture. I'm all for open discussion about it, and I'm willing to hear suggestions. But it's also true that a lot of criticism is severely detached from reality.[/quote]

the same can be said about the fliup side ..even more so because out of national security interests NO info extracted from torture is ever publicised

If you would value a known terrorist's human rights over the lives of innocent women and children, there's something wrong with your moral framework.

now who's heaping the straw man theories? when did I ever say I valued terrorist lives? that's perposterous ..and no they are never KNOWn terrorists ..if that were the case they would be charged with terrorism ..which none have been

Doesn't need to be a nuclear bomb. Could be a train explosive. Could be a little girl stolen away in danger of starving or dehydration. In each scenario, the known guilty party is serving as an impediment to saving an innocent life. If he or she is not willing to cooperate, then I don't see much of a problem with extracting such information from them even it does involve a kick to the teeth.

again pain will not guarentee an honest answer ..emotional duress is more likely but that takes time and is ineffective as well much for the same reasons inflicting pain

I think you greatly underestimate the kind of power that pain can hold.

not at all ..in fact I've have said time and again that pain is ineffective because people will say anything to make it stop

Take it up with the justice system. As I have stated numerous times, I am willing to support torture if exercised with judicial usage, sound reasoning, and when lives are directly and imminently at stake.

that's contradictory because no judge could ever advocate torture ..it's against common law

Last response, for now at least. I can take quote wars when they're of manageable size, but I can already tell this is snowballing into a scenario where each post is broken into twenty different segments and it will just get tiring. I should be packing right now, actually. =P

and I should be working ..the reason why I cut up your post is because I want to answer every one of your points ..not cherry pick the ones that I can answer and ignore the rest like so many people do. IMHO it's not good debating practice to cherry pick people's points to suit personal tastes


edit: I just looked at my latest response to your reply ...boy is it ever long

 

[Walter]

I've got a feeling that they were being forced by the british government to "admit" that they were treated with disrespect by the Iranians...not like that's impossible to do. We may never know the truth, since Iranians will say one, the British another. But then, why would Iran risk treat them with disrespect when they were having the US fleet just at their front door and only waiting for the order to send the Tomahawks already?