I already reiterated Cameronpoe's solution: infiltration. The Brits were much more successful with infiltration than torture in the North of Ireland. All the torture ever seemed to do was legitimise their enemies struggle and blacken their own reputation when 'guilty' people were later proven to be completely innocent.M.O.A.B wrote:
Nice at least someone looked for something, now give us the solution to stoppin the nutjobs without use of force, also I wouldn't call the Red Mosque a terrorist attack as it was a siege.Braddock wrote:
I like how the pro-torture guys here all ask for an effective alternative from Cameronpoe and when he suggests one - infiltration - they just ignore it or throw silly insults like "I'm glad you have all the answers to the world's problems" or "I'm glad you work for the C.I.A."
You keep asking "What if you have to find out information within a short space of time?" but the fact is I think you've been watching too much 24. By then it's dangerously close to being too late and as Cam pointed out your torture victim will most likely hold out for the required amount of time or the terror cell will have a contingency plan. If you can successfully infiltrate these cells it won't get as close as a Jack Bauer style scenario.
In response to M.O.A.B's request ...not everyone has time to troll the internet but off the top of my head I can think off...
The bombing in Pakistan that nearly killed Benazir Bhutto.
The bombing in Algeria recently.
The battle of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The bomb blast that killed the Lebanese army's chief of operations today.
The Jemaah Islamiyah bomb attack in Thailand on new year's eve 2006.
I found a nice biased webite for you too.
Ha ha Mekstizzle beat me to it!^^
Infiltration is fine...and I am sure we do that.Braddock wrote:
I like how the pro-torture guys here all ask for an effective alternative from Cameronpoe and when he suggests one - infiltration - they just ignore it or throw silly insults like "I'm glad you have all the answers to the world's problems" or "I'm glad you work for the C.I.A."
You keep asking "What if you have to find out information within a short space of time?" but the fact is I think you've been watching too much 24. By then it's dangerously close to being too late and as Cam pointed out your torture victim will most likely hold out for the required amount of time or the terror cell will have a contingency plan. If you can successfully infiltrate these cells it won't get as close as a Jack Bauer style scenario.
In response to M.O.A.B's request ...not everyone has time to troll the internet but off the top of my head I can think off...
The bombing in Pakistan that nearly killed Benazir Bhutto.
The bombing in Algeria recently.
The battle of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The bomb blast that killed the Lebanese army's chief of operations today.
The Jemaah Islamiyah bomb attack in Thailand on new year's eve 2006.
I found a nice biased webite for you too.
Ha ha Mekstizzle beat me to it!^^
I asked for an example to my question. Infiltration does not always catch everything. And if something slipped by, how would infiltration get at answer to the questions you are asking?
And I do not watch 24...I think it sucks.
Infiltration doesn't apply at that stage. I would have less of a problem with truth drugs than torture, why not spend more on researching that aspect of interrogation?usmarine2005 wrote:
Infiltration is fine...and I am sure we do that.Braddock wrote:
I like how the pro-torture guys here all ask for an effective alternative from Cameronpoe and when he suggests one - infiltration - they just ignore it or throw silly insults like "I'm glad you have all the answers to the world's problems" or "I'm glad you work for the C.I.A."
You keep asking "What if you have to find out information within a short space of time?" but the fact is I think you've been watching too much 24. By then it's dangerously close to being too late and as Cam pointed out your torture victim will most likely hold out for the required amount of time or the terror cell will have a contingency plan. If you can successfully infiltrate these cells it won't get as close as a Jack Bauer style scenario.
In response to M.O.A.B's request ...not everyone has time to troll the internet but off the top of my head I can think off...
The bombing in Pakistan that nearly killed Benazir Bhutto.
The bombing in Algeria recently.
The battle of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The bomb blast that killed the Lebanese army's chief of operations today.
The Jemaah Islamiyah bomb attack in Thailand on new year's eve 2006.
I found a nice biased webite for you too.
Ha ha Mekstizzle beat me to it!^^
I asked for an example to my question. Infiltration does not always catch everything. And if something slipped by, how would infiltration get at answer to the questions you are asking?
And I do not watch 24...I think it sucks.
I just think injecting a substance into someones blood stream is worse than pouring water on their face.Braddock wrote:
Infiltration doesn't apply at that stage. I would have less of a problem with truth drugs than torture, why not spend more on researching that aspect of interrogation?
You've got morals all of a sudden?usmarine2005 wrote:
I just think injecting a substance into someones blood stream is worse than pouring water on their face.Braddock wrote:
Infiltration doesn't apply at that stage. I would have less of a problem with truth drugs than torture, why not spend more on researching that aspect of interrogation?
What does that mean?Braddock wrote:
You've got morals all of a sudden?
And I said the exact same thing in another thread.
What I'm getting at is that you don't mind inflicting physical and psychological discomfort on someone but get all high and mighty when it comes to using a substance that won't cause as much distress but may require intravenous administration. What makes one method 'better' than the other?usmarine2005 wrote:
What does that mean?Braddock wrote:
You've got morals all of a sudden?
And I said the exact same thing in another thread.
would you support torture in the war on terror if only the world's clandestine agencies were involved and all conventional military operations ceased? that means no more innocent children dying, no more collateral damage. damage to infrastructure, schools, hospitals. no more friendly fire. just asking.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-12 16:21:03)
Well I do not approve of it just for the fun of it. Or because they do not worship the right god.Braddock wrote:
What I'm getting at is that you don't mind inflicting physical and psychological discomfort on someone but get all high and mighty when it comes to using a substance that won't cause as much distress but may require intravenous administration. What makes one method 'better' than the other?usmarine2005 wrote:
What does that mean?Braddock wrote:
You've got morals all of a sudden?
And I said the exact same thing in another thread.
I wouldn't shed a tear for a tortured terrorist, it's the innocent people like Gerry Conlon from Northern Ireland, who was tortured into giving a confession and was locked up for fifteen years on the back of that confession, that I feel sympathy for. If you subject innocent people to torture, even if it's in the hope of fighting terrorism, you yourself become the terrorist.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
would you support torture in the war on terror if only the world's clandestine agencies were involved and all conventional military operations ceased? that means no more innocent children dying, no more collateral damage. damage to infrastructure, schools, hospitals. no more friendly fire. just asking.
Now who the fuck ever said just torture innocent people for the fuck of it?Braddock wrote:
If you subject innocent people to torture, even if it's in the hope of fighting terrorism, you yourself become the terrorist.
I dunno usmarine, who? My point is that if you apply torture tactics as a normal procedure you will eventually use them on innocent people. Torturing innocent people is terrorism ...and the whole 'it's for the greater good' argument doesn't change that.usmarine2005 wrote:
Now who the fuck ever said just torture innocent people for the fuck of it?Braddock wrote:
If you subject innocent people to torture, even if it's in the hope of fighting terrorism, you yourself become the terrorist.
So you are saying it would filter down to the local police or something right?Braddock wrote:
I dunno usmarine, who? My point is that if you apply torture tactics as a normal procedure you will eventually use them on innocent people. Torturing innocent people is terrorism ...and the whole 'it's for the greater good' argument doesn't change that.usmarine2005 wrote:
Now who the fuck ever said just torture innocent people for the fuck of it?Braddock wrote:
If you subject innocent people to torture, even if it's in the hope of fighting terrorism, you yourself become the terrorist.
From a few sources i have read... Only 3 terrorist suspects have been waterboarded... Khalid Shake your money maker mohamed(mastermind of 9/11...along with G bush...lol) and 2 others... And the Military uses these same enhanced techniques during training... With no ill or long term effects...
Love is the answer
Yet strangely, we still have freedom, liberty, and democracy in the US...even after three top AQ terrorists were waterboarded by the CIA. How is that possible?! It must not be real...Cam said so.CameronPoe wrote:
Now whether you guys concede it or not the US tries to legitimise its actions on the global scene with it's 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy' platform and rhetoric. Those kind of values are incompatible with the use of waterboarding, i.e. torture.
Well, the CIA is working on that also. But it takes time. In the meantime, what do you do? Ask "pretty please" and when they say "no" you just say "Oh well we tried. Sorry about that all you soon-to-be victims." Sorry. We hold the lives of innocents in a bit higher regard than that. But if you feel better by letting them die when you had a chance to stop them by waterboarding a fucking terrorist, then you go ahead and take that option when you get the opportunity.CameronPoe wrote:
You have to choose other methods of combatting terror organisations - they operate in isolated cells that rarely communicate with each other anyway so any information you do get, if true, will likely be obsolete or practically useless. You need to take a Guerrilla Warfare 101 class. The Brits gleaned their info on the IRA through INFILTRATION not torture.
But I thought they all worked in separate cells that never talked to one another. How can those measures be put into place if they operate independently of one another? You're contradicting yourself.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. The likelihood is that the guy will hold out for the few hours/days necessary or there will be measures in place to stop the plan/change it if one of the operatives goes missing. Do you need me to give you a short course on guerrilla war?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So...is that higher or lower incidence of attack than before OIF? You can't just point to events that have occurred since 2003 and attribute them to Iraq. The real statistically relevant question here is: Have terrorist attacks outside of Iraq increased or decreased from pre-OIF levels since March 2003?Braddock wrote:
In response to M.O.A.B's request ...not everyone has time to troll the internet but off the top of my head I can think off...
The bombing in Pakistan that nearly killed Benazir Bhutto.
The bombing in Algeria recently.
The battle of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The bomb blast that killed the Lebanese army's chief of operations today.
The Jemaah Islamiyah bomb attack in Thailand on new year's eve 2006.
I found a nice biased webite for you too.
Ha ha Mekstizzle beat me to it!^^
As a corollary: How many of the attacks that occurred outside of Iraq are related to AQI or JAM efforts in Iraq? Without the linkage, you have separate, unique data sets...with no influence on each other.
Not a single one of those attacks listed was related to Iraq, but rather to internal issues in those countries.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Fine, you agree with torture and extraordinary rendition. Just don't bother crying about it when your enemy shows no scruples and cuts your countrymen's heads off ...seen as the rule book is being thrown out the window by both sides.FEOS wrote:
Yet strangely, we still have freedom, liberty, and democracy in the US...even after three top AQ terrorists were waterboarded by the CIA. How is that possible?! It must not be real...Cam said so.CameronPoe wrote:
Now whether you guys concede it or not the US tries to legitimise its actions on the global scene with it's 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy' platform and rhetoric. Those kind of values are incompatible with the use of waterboarding, i.e. torture.Well, the CIA is working on that also. But it takes time. In the meantime, what do you do? Ask "pretty please" and when they say "no" you just say "Oh well we tried. Sorry about that all you soon-to-be victims." Sorry. We hold the lives of innocents in a bit higher regard than that. But if you feel better by letting them die when you had a chance to stop them by waterboarding a fucking terrorist, then you go ahead and take that option when you get the opportunity.CameronPoe wrote:
You have to choose other methods of combatting terror organisations - they operate in isolated cells that rarely communicate with each other anyway so any information you do get, if true, will likely be obsolete or practically useless. You need to take a Guerrilla Warfare 101 class. The Brits gleaned their info on the IRA through INFILTRATION not torture.But I thought they all worked in separate cells that never talked to one another. How can those measures be put into place if they operate independently of one another? You're contradicting yourself.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. The likelihood is that the guy will hold out for the few hours/days necessary or there will be measures in place to stop the plan/change it if one of the operatives goes missing. Do you need me to give you a short course on guerrilla war?
Two points...FEOS wrote:
So...is that higher or lower incidence of attack than before OIF? You can't just point to events that have occurred since 2003 and attribute them to Iraq. The real statistically relevant question here is: Have terrorist attacks outside of Iraq increased or decreased from pre-OIF levels since March 2003?Braddock wrote:
In response to M.O.A.B's request ...not everyone has time to troll the internet but off the top of my head I can think off...
The bombing in Pakistan that nearly killed Benazir Bhutto.
The bombing in Algeria recently.
The battle of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The bomb blast that killed the Lebanese army's chief of operations today.
The Jemaah Islamiyah bomb attack in Thailand on new year's eve 2006.
I found a nice biased webite for you too.
Ha ha Mekstizzle beat me to it!^^
As a corollary: How many of the attacks that occurred outside of Iraq are related to AQI or JAM efforts in Iraq? Without the linkage, you have separate, unique data sets...with no influence on each other.
Not a single one of those attacks listed was related to Iraq, but rather to internal issues in those countries.
A: I was actually impressed at myself for bothering to find one set of data, never mind trolling the internet for another set to cross-check it with.
B: The reason none of them relate to the situation in Iraq was because the original request was for a listing of terrorist attacks OUTSIDE Iraq.
Where did I say I agree with torture and extraordinary rendition? Nowhere, that's where.Braddock wrote:
Fine, you agree with torture and extraordinary rendition. Just don't bother crying about it when your enemy shows no scruples and cuts your countrymen's heads off ...seen as the rule book is being thrown out the window by both sides.
Waterboarding is a far cry from murdering someone on video. I never said killing prisoners is acceptable, did I?
Your leaps in logic based on my opinion of a single interrogation method are just plain silly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You will have freedom, liberty and democracy with or without waterboarding. Are you suggesting there is a direct correlation between waterboarding and maintenance of freedom in the US?FEOS wrote:
Yet strangely, we still have freedom, liberty, and democracy in the US...even after three top AQ terrorists were waterboarded by the CIA. How is that possible?! It must not be real...Cam said so.CameronPoe wrote:
Now whether you guys concede it or not the US tries to legitimise its actions on the global scene with it's 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy' platform and rhetoric. Those kind of values are incompatible with the use of waterboarding, i.e. torture.
Waterboarding a suspected terrorist. I never realised you disagreed with the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I have also expounded upon the futility of the measures. You are exaggerating the 'chance to save innocents' that exists. One cannot selectively apply principles and keep ones head up high.FEOS wrote:
Well, the CIA is working on that also. But it takes time. In the meantime, what do you do? Ask "pretty please" and when they say "no" you just say "Oh well we tried. Sorry about that all you soon-to-be victims." Sorry. We hold the lives of innocents in a bit higher regard than that. But if you feel better by letting them die when you had a chance to stop them by waterboarding a fucking terrorist, then you go ahead and take that option when you get the opportunity.CameronPoe wrote:
You have to choose other methods of combatting terror organisations - they operate in isolated cells that rarely communicate with each other anyway so any information you do get, if true, will likely be obsolete or practically useless. You need to take a Guerrilla Warfare 101 class. The Brits gleaned their info on the IRA through INFILTRATION not torture.
One cell carries out one operation and communication with other cells does not occur, it takes place between one lead operative and a higher contact. Any operative you detain will know only of the mission with which his cell has been tasked, which upon loss of an operative will likely be aborted on 'risk of failure' grounds.FEOS wrote:
But I thought they all worked in separate cells that never talked to one another. How can those measures be put into place if they operate independently of one another? You're contradicting yourself.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. The likelihood is that the guy will hold out for the few hours/days necessary or there will be measures in place to stop the plan/change it if one of the operatives goes missing. Do you need me to give you a short course on guerrilla war?
So you don't agree with torture? Cool, neither do I ...do you wanna be friends?FEOS wrote:
Where did I say I agree with torture and extraordinary rendition? Nowhere, that's where.Braddock wrote:
Fine, you agree with torture and extraordinary rendition. Just don't bother crying about it when your enemy shows no scruples and cuts your countrymen's heads off ...seen as the rule book is being thrown out the window by both sides.
Waterboarding is a far cry from murdering someone on video. I never said killing prisoners is acceptable, did I?
Your leaps in logic based on my opinion of a single interrogation method are just plain silly.
Waterboarding is a far cry from murdering someone on video in my book took but it's a step down the same path, even if it is only the first step.
well, what about the London and Madrid bombings then ? Or are those also not linked to Operations in iraq ?FEOS wrote:
So...is that higher or lower incidence of attack than before OIF? You can't just point to events that have occurred since 2003 and attribute them to Iraq. The real statistically relevant question here is: Have terrorist attacks outside of Iraq increased or decreased from pre-OIF levels since March 2003?Braddock wrote:
In response to M.O.A.B's request ...not everyone has time to troll the internet but off the top of my head I can think off...
The bombing in Pakistan that nearly killed Benazir Bhutto.
The bombing in Algeria recently.
The battle of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The bomb blast that killed the Lebanese army's chief of operations today.
The Jemaah Islamiyah bomb attack in Thailand on new year's eve 2006.
I found a nice biased webite for you too.
Ha ha Mekstizzle beat me to it!^^
As a corollary: How many of the attacks that occurred outside of Iraq are related to AQI or JAM efforts in Iraq? Without the linkage, you have separate, unique data sets...with no influence on each other.
Not a single one of those attacks listed was related to Iraq, but rather to internal issues in those countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2226546,00.htmlA glossary of US military torture euphemisms
Waterboarding, according to the CIA - some of whose most senior officials are currently giving evidence before a congressional inquiry into the organisation's decision to deliberately destroy video recordings of two al-Qaida captives being subjected to the practice - is merely an "enhanced coercive interrogation technique". This magnificent phrase prompts the following brief reminder of the burgeoning lexicon of euphemisms now employed by the Bush administration to describe what the president himself is pleased to refer to as "the tools necessary to protect the American people".
Special methods of questioning Essentially indistinguishable from "enhanced coercive interrogation technique", this seems to be a broad-brush term covering a range of interrogation methods likely to arouse disquiet in the kind of people who worry about such matters as the Geneva Convention, the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Black sites The secret CIA prisons and/or interrogation centres where the above techniques are practised.
Illegal combatants The people to whom the above techniques are applied.
Sleep management Deluded liberals may prefer the term "sleep deprivation".
Stress position Detainee is forced to stand erect for several hours. Or forced to stand erect for several hours, with his arms held out to the side. Or shackled to the ceiling with his arms extended, sometimes without his feet touching the ground. Whichever, it's certainly stressful.
Special renditions Er, kidnapping.
Fear up Ranges from leaving a truncheon on the table to throwing furniture around or, as the website Slate has pointed out, if the prisoner is religious, allowing him to think that he may face eternal damnation by threatening to show him pornographic images.
Sexual humiliation Detainee forced to strip naked, or adopt sexually explicit poses.
Mild, non-injurious physical contact A cuff round the ear. Or - whoops, we never meant to go that far - a broken leg.
Refined interrogation techniques Actually, that was the Gestapo's favourite euphemism. But then, they didn't practise torture either, did they?
usmarine2005 wrote:
Please give examples.B.Schuss wrote:
so often the US claim the moral high ground on these issues, and call others out for human rights violations.
Double standard ftl...
Proclaiming non-negotiable demands of human dignity, claiming that defending human rights is one of the US's primary missions of diplomacy, it doesn't sit very well with Abu Ghraib, with waterboarding, with kidnapping innocent citizens and torturing them.US Department of State wrote:
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 6, 2007
Across the globe, men and women are pushing for greater personal and political freedom and for the adoption of democratic institutions. They are striving to secure what President Bush calls "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity."
Despite personal risk and against great odds, courageous individuals and nongovernmental groups expose human rights abuses. They seek to protect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, workers, and women, and to stop the trafficking in human beings. They work to build vibrant civil societies, ensure free and fair elections, and establish accountable, law-based democracies.
These impatient patriots are redefining the limitations of what was previously thought to be possible. Indeed, in the span of a few generations freedom has spread across the developing world, communist dictatorships have collapsed, and new democracies have risen. The rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are protected more fully and by more countries than ever before.
This noble work continues - but it is not yet complete and it faces determined opponents. Not surprisingly, those who feel threatened by democratic change resist those who advocate and act for reform. Over the past year, we have seen attempts to harass and intimidate human rights defenders and civil society organizations and to restrict or shut down their activities. Unjust laws have been wielded as political weapons against those with independent views. There also have been attempts to silence dissenting voices by extralegal means.
Whenever non-governmental organizations and other human rights defenders are under siege, freedom and democracy are undermined. The world's democracies must defend the defenders. That is one of the primary missions of our diplomacy today, and we hope that the Department of State's County Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 will help to further this effort. With these thoughts, I hereby submit these reports to the United States Congress.
Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
CIA interrogators fear prosecution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washi … =permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washi … =permalink
This would absolve politicians while leaving the interrogators in potential legal jeopardy for the rest of their lives. We’re a democratic republic, and should be able to hold our politicians accountable for the decisions made in their name. The present situation leaves the officers who are directly involved exposed while the politicians get to hide, and that’s unfair. But that’s also how it was designed.For six years, Central Intelligence Agency officers have worried that someday the tide of post-Sept. 11 opinion would turn, and their harsh treatment of prisoners from Al Qaeda would be subjected to hostile scrutiny and possible criminal prosecution.
Now that day may have arrived, after years of shifting legal advice, searing criticism from rights groups — and no new terrorist attacks on American soil.
The Justice Department, which in 2002 gave the C.I.A. legal approval for waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods, is reviewing whether agency officials broke the law by destroying videotapes of those very methods.
The Congressional intelligence committees, whose leaders in 2002 gave at least tacit approval for the tough tactics, have voted in conference to ban all coercive techniques, and they have announced investigations of the destruction of the videotapes and the methods they documented.
“Exactly what they feared is what’s happening,” Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, said of the C.I.A. officials he advised in that job. “The winds change, and the recriminations begin.”
Xbone Stormsurgezz