US/Pakistan capture top taliban senior

[jverne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJLuOwSlMgA


Good news. He probably has many critical information, but how do you get it from him? Should be torture allowed in this case?

edit: why the eff did i put it in the lounge...mods please move to politics.

 

[15357]

Give me some electric wire, an outlet, and a couple of hours, and I'll have him sing like a bird.



Disregard that, I am intoxicated. Seriously.

 

[Sparta]

Good news. He probably has many critical information, but how do you get it from him? Should be torture allowed in this case?

We've tried that before on other people high up in Al Qaeda. Doesn't work too well as they tend to make shit up just to stop the torture.

 

[jverne]

We've tried that before on other people high up in Al Qaeda. Doesn't work too well as they tend to make shit up just to stop the torture.

I agree torture is bad...but how do you make a guy like this talk, other than to let him go? Give him cookies? This guy could very well mean the demise of the taliban movement, he won't go down easy.

 

[No Limit]

I agree torture is bad...but how do you make a guy like this talk, other than to let him go? Give him cookies? This guy could very well mean the demise of the taliban movement, he won't go down easy.

Well from what I recall a happy meal did the trick on atleast one occasion. And yesterday I heard the Christmas bomber is talking because he's claustrophobic and doesn't like to be locked up in small cells.

So yeah, lets try giving him cookies. Seriously. Although he is in pakistan, so my guess is they are torturing him and that will lead to only bad information.

And let him go? Why in the world would we do that?

On edit looks like my memory is fuzzy, it wasn't a happy meal, it was, in fact, cookies:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html

Sugar free to be exact.

 

[Solaris]

Under no circumstances must we allow him to be tortured, he should be treated well, as a prisoner of war.

 

[Noodle]

Sure, interrogate the hell out of him. Doesn't mean you have to bring out the whips and chains, but you can still be serious about it.

Note: This really depends on what you consider "torture". I always prefer a "You tell us some good stuff, we don't fry you."

The problem here is this: if you just keep him in prison, he won't have a reason to talk. Tt's probably better than his previous cave home. Better dental, too.

 

[No Limit]

Sure, interrogate the hell out of him. Doesn't mean you have to bring out the whips and chains, but you can still be serious about it.

Note: This really depends on what you consider "torture". I always prefer a "You tell us some good stuff, we don't fry you."

The problem here is this: if you just keep him in prison, he won't have a reason to talk. Tt's probably better than his previous cave home. Better dental, too.

Well if you think with your gut I can understand why you have that opinion. But if you look at the actual facts you can clearly see that your opinion here is totally wrong.

And are you serious with the line "you tell us some good stuff we don't fry you"? Do you have a concept of what torture is?

 

[Solaris]

Sure, interrogate the hell out of him. Doesn't mean you have to bring out the whips and chains, but you can still be serious about it.

Note: This really depends on what you consider "torture". I always prefer a "You tell us some good stuff, we don't fry you."

The problem here is this: if you just keep him in prison, he won't have a reason to talk. Tt's probably better than his previous cave home. Better dental, too.

This is disgraceful, you're advocating torture here. Totally unacceptable and goes against everything we're fighting for.

 

[Polaris]

Under no circumstances must we allow him to be tortured, he should be treated well, as a prisoner of war.

I'm not an advocate of torture but why should they have prisoner of war status? They are terrorists and criminals, not soldiers.

 

[No Limit]

I'm not an advocate of torture but why should they have prisoner of war status? They are terrorists and criminals, not soldiers.

Aren't we at war with terror? You can't have it both ways.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not an advocate of torture but why should they have prisoner of war status? They are terrorists and criminals, not soldiers.

because it's an insurgency to an occupying army. by definition that covers them under the geneva accords. even bush had to agree with this

Sure, interrogate the hell out of him. Doesn't mean you have to bring out the whips and chains, but you can still be serious about it.

Note: This really depends on what you consider "torture". I always prefer a "You tell us some good stuff, we don't fry you."

ya except torture is completely ineffectual. so are threats. knowing this, as most people who have read anything about guantanamo would know, it begs the question as to why you want to torture them in the first place, seeing as how it's completely ineffectual? revenge? sadism? brainwashed to the point where anyone who fits a loose definition of someone who doesnt uphold the ideals of some radical and idiotic conservative arm-chair thinktank is fodder for knee jerk justice?

 

[Noodle]

Well if you think with your gut I can understand why you have that opinion. But if you look at the actual facts you can clearly see that your opinion here is totally wrong.

And are you serious with the line "you tell us some good stuff we don't fry you"? Do you have a concept of what torture is?

Whoops. I didn't mean to imply I actually want to fry them.

This is disgraceful, you're advocating torture here. Totally unacceptable and goes against everything we're fighting for.

ya except torture is completely ineffectual. so are threats. knowing this, as most people who have read anything about guantanamo would know, it begs the question as to why you want to torture them in the first place, seeing as how it's completely ineffectual? revenge? sadism? brainwashed to the point where anyone who fits a loose definition of someone who doesnt uphold the ideals of some radical and idiotic conservative arm-chair thinktank is fodder for knee jerk justice?

Yeah, poorly worded post. Stupid me.

I'm not advocating torture. Torture is pointless beyond primitive barbaric motivations, but letting them go like any petty criminal isn't any better. The fact is that life in a prison is probably more comfortable than his previous life in a dirty cave, so if there isn't even a threat of something worse, they'll have no reason to talk.

 

[Sparta]

I'm not advocating torture. Torture is pointless beyond primitive barbaric motivations, but letting them go like any petty criminal isn't any better. The fact is that life in a prison is probably more comfortable than his previous life in a dirty cave, so if there isn't even a threat of something worse, they'll have no reason to talk.

Well I seriously doubt they'll just let the go into a normal Maximum Security prison, and not confine him to solitary almost indefinitely given how dangerous he is and how much he knows.

A normal interrogation like any other will work just fine.

 

[Noodle]

A normal interrogation like any other will work just fine.

From a moral standpoint, it's fine, but will it accomplish anything?

 

[Dan]

ya except torture is completely ineffectual. so are threats. knowing this, as most people who have read anything about guantanamo would know, it begs the question as to why you want to torture them in the first place, seeing as how it's completely ineffectual? revenge? sadism? brainwashed to the point where anyone who fits a loose definition of someone who doesnt uphold the ideals of some radical and idiotic conservative arm-chair thinktank is fodder for knee jerk justice?

Torture is ineffectual? Maybe if you are asking unverifiable questions, like "what did you have for breakfast?", or "What is your opinion of So And So?" But throw in a lie detector and some questions that you know the answers to and a few questions that you can check the answers to, and a few questions that you have an idea of the answer from other torture victims along with the questions that you don't know the answer to at all, and you have a very effective tool for gaining information. On every question, increase the torture until you get the true answer. On the questions you aren't sure about, increase the torture as though you were getting false answers until you are satisfied you have the truth, and then add a lot of repetition to everything.

 

[unozero]

stern and no limit should be play lawyer for this guy I bet that would give them both a boner.

 

[MFL]

Morality mode, off.

I would just like to inform everyone that any information that you receive after you torture someone can not be used in the American court system as evidence against them or I believe, anyone else.

However, practically, information that is used to good effect in war is just that. HUMINT, indeed. What information has been tortured out of someone that lead to good effect in battle? (Here's a hint: You don't know, and they're not going to tell you for at least the next 40 years.) I do not know this offhand, but the theory is the point, not the practice, in this case.

Morality mode, activate.

 

[unozero]

The info we get out of we will use for assassinations,so its all good.
'm hoping we can give some info to Mossad too they do a great job.

 

[No Limit]

stern and no limit should be play lawyer for this guy I bet that would give them both a boner.

Seriously, do you have to be a ****ing moron with every single post you make? Come on dude, I know there is a brain in there somewhere. Incase you haven't figured it out already you are not funny, stop trying.

 

[No Limit]

Torture is ineffectual? Maybe if you are asking unverifiable questions, like "what did you have for breakfast?", or "What is your opinion of So And So?" But throw in a lie detector and some questions that you know the answers to and a few questions that you can check the answers to, and a few questions that you have an idea of the answer from other torture victims along with the questions that you don't know the answer to at all, and you have a very effective tool for gaining information. On every question, increase the torture until you get the true answer. On the questions you aren't sure about, increase the torture as though you were getting false answers until you are satisfied you have the truth, and then add a lot of repetition to everything.

Dan, I too watch a lot of 24, but that's not how things play out in the real world. We can go point by point how your scenario is fiction but really all you have to do is ask yourself that if torture is effective why were we given such bad information from it? Much of that information was used to justify the Iraq invasion yet all of it turned out to be false. Obviously your Jack Bauer scenerio doesn't work in real life, if it did we would have heard over and over how many terrorist attacks it has stopped. It didn't stop one.

Instead what happened was torutre was used for and is used for is to get evidance (however false that evidance might be) for a conclusion you have already made.

This doesn't even address any of the moral issues, such as when we torture innocent people and get to confess to something they never did, as has happened in the prior administration at the height of their torture policy.

 

[MFL]

if torture is effective why were we given such bad information from it?

When were we given bad information from it, specifically? What information was this? And how the hell do you know? Did you watch it on the news?

Much of that information was used to justify the Iraq invasion yet all of it turned out to be false.

Which information? From which source? At what time?

If you answer any of this without any more non sequiturs, you just might make me a happy person.

 

[No Limit]

Sure:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/nation/na-cia-detainee16

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/15/ksm-was-questioned-about_n_203898.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/

Now let me ask you, if torture was effective why did they have to do it 183 times within a month (March 2003)?

Now your turn, give me one example of torute being effective.

 

[CptStern]

Torture is ineffectual? Maybe if you are asking unverifiable questions, like "what did you have for breakfast?", or "What is your opinion of So And So?" But throw in a lie detector and some questions that you know the answers to and a few questions that you can check the answers to, and a few questions that you have an idea of the answer from other torture victims along with the questions that you don't know the answer to at all, and you have a very effective tool for gaining information. On every question, increase the torture until you get the true answer. On the questions you aren't sure about, increase the torture as though you were getting false answers until you are satisfied you have the truth, and then add a lot of repetition to everything.

yes torture is ineffectual:

Writing under the pseudonym of Matthew Alexander, a former special intelligence operations officer, who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq, has written a compelling book where he details his direct experience with torture practices. He conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than a thousand and was awarded a Bronze Star for his achievements in Iraq. Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

It's extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish," he told reporters. "When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve," Alexander explained. "The information that you get is unreliable ... And even if you do get reliable information, you're able to stop a terrorist attack, Al-Qaeda's then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members." Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information.

http://www.military.com/news/article/exinterrogator-torture-doesnt--work.html

I would just like to inform everyone that any information that you receive after you torture someone can not be used in the American court system as evidence against them or I believe, anyone else.

not true:

U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6641282/

When were we given bad information from it, specifically? What information was this? And how the hell do you know? Did you watch it on the news?

:upstare: not the liebral media, god no!

[on whether or not non violent interrogation works]

From a moral standpoint, it's fine, but will it accomplish anything?

yes, yes it does:

"Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

now list where evidence obtained through torture led to anything as substantial as that example

 

[MFL]

I should have clarified some things, let me do so now. I am trying to put aside my own personal views on torture and look at this from an objective viewpoint.I personally do not consider military tribunals to be part of the American court system because they are not subject to the same jurisprudence that the latter is. As for the examples that you have given me, except for the one from CNN, they are hearsay (and not specific in the sense that I asked [well, yeah, technically it was, but I meant to extend that use of "specifically on to the rest of what followed]). And as for that one in particular, at this point I think we can all agree that they were going to invade Iraq whether or not they had any evidence to support themselves. If you assume that, which, granted, is a big assumption, then the connection to the evidence, and so then torture, is trivial.

As for the effectiveness of information gained from torture, we're about to arrive at a paradox. I honestly don't have access to the information that I would need to give you a correct answer. Most people do not publish the intelligence that they receive. Even fewer do so with intelligence gained from torture. And after the information has been used to whatever effect it would be used for, why then would anyone bother publishing it? It has served it's purpose and can be forgotten about. Most cases from history have been forgotten about, and most cases in the present are either classified or considered unimportant. When something goes wrong, people make a fuss. When it works, people go on with their lives like nothing happened. When was the last time I heard a news report about a successful raid or defense as a result of information gained from torture? I have never heard one. Does it mean it hasn't happened? I can't say yes or no to that. And honestly, I'm just too lazy to go digging, and I probably wouldn't be able to find out and tell you even if I wanted to. It both helps and hinders the argument (but leans much more towards the argument against torture), as while you can prove there are cases where it is ineffectual, you can't at the same time prove that is always ineffectual. Is torture worth it in the end? That's up to society to decide in the end. Personally, I don't care for it.

I'm pretty sure the Salem Witches weren't fond of it either. But who knows, maybe they caught one or two actual witches with it. But was it worth it in the end? How much did those people give up in order to catch one or two witches. If you're going to argue against torture, it's better to think along those lines instead of whether or not the information is effective.

On the other hand, I fully advocate torture against people with bad G-Man theories.

 

[No Limit]

And as for that one in particular, at this point I think we can all agree that they were going to invade Iraq whether or not they had any evidence to support themselves. If you assume that, which, granted, is a big assumption, then the connection to the evidence, and so then torture, is trivial.

How is it trivial? You asked me for examples, I gave you examples. If you want to ignore the other ones because they are hearsay that's fair enough, but you still have the example from CNN. They had made a conclusion and decided they were going to torture people to get evidance for their conclusion. And that's what they did. They then used this evidance in a speech to justify their invasion when that evidance turned out to be totally false.

So again, you asked for an example of how it is ineffective, I gave you one. You can probably find more if you want, I just don't feel like looking for it, that's the one that was in my most recent memory.

Now you say you don't have access to information that would show it was effective. Look back at the Bush administration. Do you honestly believe that they would not have came out on every news outlet in this country if they had proof showing that torture was effective? They had no problem releasing classified data to make a political point on numerous occasions, including outing a CIA agent. Why would they suddenly have a problem with releasing such information especially when there was talk of prosecuting them for their role in torture?

I'm pretty sure the Salem Witches weren't fond of it either. But who knows, maybe they caught one or two actual witches with it. But was it worth it in the end? How much did those people give up in order to catch one or two witches. If you're going to argue against torture, it's better to think along those lines instead of whether or not the information is effective.

One of us must be high as a kite, because I have no clue as to what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure they never found any actual witches.

 

[nurizeko]

Give me some electric wire, an outlet, and a couple of hours, and I'll have him sing like a bird.



Disregard that, I am intoxicated. Seriously.

Pace yourself, darling.

 

[MFL]

Why would they suddenly have a problem with releasing such information especially when there was talk of prosecuting them for their role in torture?

Because of the Geneva Conventions. If, at the time, they had come out and said, "HEY GUYS LOOK, LOOK WHAT WE GOT FROM TORTURING THIS GUY!", then they would have instantly lost all the support from the populace that they had gotten from 2001. They needed that at the time.
And because you can't use evidence gained from torture in the American court system.

 

[No Limit]

Because of the Geneva Conventions.
And because you can't use evidence gained from torture in the American court system.

Huh? Obviously they didn't care about the Geneva Conventions as they never denied the torture (well they denied it was called torutre but thats besides the point). So if they admitted that waterboarding was used why would they have a problem showing that it was effective?

The only rational explaination is that they didn't have any evidance to show that it was effective. Yet there is lots of evidance that shows it wasn't effective.

 

[Noodle]

yes, yes it does:

"Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

now list where evidence obtained through torture led to anything as substantial as that example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Scroll down a bit, two examples there, both somewhat significant. Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence (this debate reeks of it) the ideas that they got information with water-boarding that they were unable to get with the less-aggressive interrogation, which was tried first. If I am correct, water-boarding was used mostly on high-level prisoners that we already knew had valuable information.

There are times where it is a better option. Not, it's not great that we do it, but it's worth saving lives and capturing more terrorists.

Really it comes down to two questions:

1. Is it torture? The main harm caused is psychological, and while there are numerous examples of people being scarred by it, there are plenty of cases where there was minimal psychological scarring. Those cases just don't get brought up in the news and stuff. You can also take the idea that torture as an act of intent. The water-boarding is to get information, not to simply cause pain.

2. Is it necessary? There are effective alternatives, but there are cases where water-boarding it the most effective option (see link above). We know many of these prisoners are prepared to die for their cause... until they actually feel close to death by drowning. The shock of realism of mortality is an effective tool.

Conclusion: If anything, I support psychological research to find more effective, and less controversial methods of interrogation. Still, the classification of it as torture is subjective due to inconsistency of psychological effects, and since there is no significant physical harm.

Another problem is the access to statistics regarding effectiveness. If anyone has anything solid on that, do post.

 

[No Limit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Scroll down a bit, two examples there, both somewhat significant. Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence (this debate reeks of it) the ideas that they got information with water-boarding that they were unable to get with the less-aggressive interrogation, which was tried first. If I am correct, water-boarding was used mostly on high-level prisoners that we already knew had valuable information.

Read the source for that claim on wikipedia. I like you saw that earlier too. But if you read the actual new york times article it never says that they got the information because they waterboarded him. In fact the article seems to imply they only got the information when they were able to calm him down and have an interrigator that could related to him. Remember, Wikipedia is a user edited site. Anyone can edit it, that doesn't mean its not a valuable resource but always check the sources they cite.

 

[MFL]

Huh? Obviously they didn't care about the Geneva Conventions as they never denied the torture (well they denied it was called torutre but thats besides the point). So if they admitted that waterboarding was used why would they have a problem showing that it was effective?

Check the date on that CNN story. 2009 is quite a bit later than 2003. The time difference is important here.

As for anecdotal support 'reeking', well, if a theory is sound, it's sound man. Lol.

 

[Noodle]

As for anecdotal support 'reeking', well, if a theory is sound, it's sound man. Lol.

I'm just saying that there seems to be a lack of significant statistical evidence to support any claims in this case.

 

[MFL]

Yeah, that's the paradox I was talking about. Sucks, eyah.

 

[CptStern]

As for the effectiveness of information gained from torture, we're about to arrive at a paradox. I honestly don't have access to the information that I would need to give you a correct answer. Most people do not publish the intelligence that they receive. Even fewer do so with intelligence gained from torture. And after the information has been used to whatever effect it would be used for, why then would anyone bother publishing it? It has served it's purpose and can be forgotten about. Most cases from history have been forgotten about, and most cases in the present are either classified or considered unimportant. When something goes wrong, people make a fuss. When it works, people go on with their lives like nothing happened. When was the last time I heard a news report about a successful raid or defense as a result of information gained from torture? I have never heard one. Does it mean it hasn't happened? I can't say yes or no to that. And honestly, I'm just too lazy to go digging, and I probably wouldn't be able to find out and tell you even if I wanted to. It both helps and hinders the argument (but leans much more towards the argument against torture), as while you can prove there are cases where it is ineffectual, you can't at the same time prove that is always ineffectual. Is torture worth it in the end? That's up to society to decide in the end. Personally, I don't care for it.

I'm pretty sure the Salem Witches weren't fond of it either. But who knows, maybe they caught one or two actual witches with it. But was it worth it in the end? How much did those people give up in order to catch one or two witches. If you're going to argue against torture, it's better to think along those lines instead of whether or not the information is effective.

On the other hand, I fully advocate torture against people with bad G-Man theories.

what you're really saying is that there may be evidence that torture works but because they dont publish it we'll never know. this argument falls apart the moment you presented it as sound reasoning. it's not. I mean why ignore evidence from people who were actually involved in the interrogation process instead of making up some highly unlikely scenario? I really dont even have to say this but I'd rather take the word of someone who knows what the hell he's talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqFO6velBOM

I'm pretty sure the Salem Witches weren't fond of it either. But who knows, maybe they caught one or two actual witches with it.

..umm you dont actually believe in witches with magical powers ...do you? it's as if you're just throwing any theory against the wall and hoping something will stick regardless if there's any truth or not. however that doesnt make it any less ridiculous

 

[No Limit]

Check the date on that CNN story. 2009 is quite a bit later than 2003. The time difference is important here.

As for anecdotal support 'reeking', well, if a theory is sound, it's sound man. Lol.

huh? So because nobody spoke out in 2003 that means anything that happened in 2003 doesn't matter? Again, huh?

 

[MFL]

Abstract thinking has gone by the wayside, hasn't it. The Salem Witch trial anecdote was just that, an anecdote. The point was that it is impossible, given the limited information we have to draw on, to know.

Stern, I would like more elaboration on my reasoning not being sound than just saying that it is not, especially when I have explained how it is as it regards that proof of ineffectiveness of torture isn't possible right now. And I never did ignore the evidence supplied by Mr. Alexander, I just never noted it or argued against it because it doesn't prove that torture is always ineffective, and other then being another example of how torture is ineffective it is has no bearing on what I was talking about. It has been ineffective, yes. Fine. To say that it is always ineffective is not a statement that can be verified. If you can prove that torture is ineffective 100% of the time, people will probably stop it. By all means, do so.

huh? So because nobody spoke out in 2003 that means anything that happened in 2003 doesn't matter? Again, huh?

The story that they tortured the Afghanistan/Iraq connection out of people only broke out only recently is what I am saying. All that was said back then is that there was intelligence that supported that supposed connection.

I'd rather take the word of someone who knows what the hell he's talking about

Good on ya, specialists in a field should always be given priority over all others. Especially if you want an accurate result. However, that is just one man. The intelligence community is not limited to just him. And even after that, to ignore what I have put forward purely on the assumption that I do not know what I am talking about would be just as much an error in reasoning as what you accuse me of making.

 

[No Limit]

The story that they tortured the Afghanistan/Iraq connection out of people only broke out only recently is what I am saying. All that was said back then is that there was intelligence that supported that supposed connection.

So? you asked me to give you examples of when torture was ineffective and abused. What does the fact it happened in 2003 and wasn't reported till 2009 have to do with this fact?

So just for anyone keeping track. We have atleast one example of torture being absued and ineffective. You don't have a single example of it being helpful. You can make as much excuses as you want about why you don't have such evidance but the fact is you don't. The fact also is that we have every reason to believe that if such evidance existed the prior administration would have leaked it.

 

[MFL]

You asked me to give you a reason why the Bush Administration would not have released such information.

Do you honestly believe that they would not have came out on every news outlet in this country if they had proof showing that torture was effective?

Then I told you that they did not want to loose their popular support. Then you tried to tell me that they admitted to torturing that information out of people. Then I corrected you, as this information was not released to the public until recently.

Other than your confusion, everything about your last post was correct, except your last sentence. You have little reason to believe that.

 

[No Limit]

No, they did not deny that they were torturing people as soon as the information about them torturing came out in in around 2005 (I could be wrong on the year, thats my memory, but the year really doesnt matter). That's when the torture debate heated up. So if they wanted to gain popular support the best thing they could have done was shown that torture worked. So again, why would they hide evidance of torture working when everyone already knew they were torturing people?