Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

imported_guy

Do you support the techiniques such as water boarding?, i personally oppose them, because one would just say anything to stop the waterboarding going on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc this is a pretty interesting video

ex_infantry man

imported_guy wrote: »

Do you support the techiniques such as water boarding?, i personally oppose them, because one would just say anything to stop the waterboarding going on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc this is a pretty interesting video

well to be honest i think if it needs doin to get the info that they need then work away!!!coz the other side prob would,nt think twice about doin it to you in a combat situation

iceage

WOW! Where did this come from?

MickJB1989

I voted no because I disagree with torture in principle due to the obvious human right's violations, and the risks of torturing innocent people by mistake, but I can see why Security services might allegedly place value in it. I do think it sets a bad precedent for conventional warfare if it gets out that your side likes to torture prisoners, because it would make it even more likely that you would be tortured if captured. The Geneva conventions exist for a reason afterall.

However, here's something to think about. Most armies train their soldiers only to withhold info for 48 hours generally, the reason being that in conventional warfare, any intel the average soldier (i.e. from sub-alterns down to privates) will have on a given situation will be out of date within a 48 hour period in this era of fast-paced modern warfare. Now, from what I've read, proper torture techniques tend to be mainly psychological, focused on convincing the subject that their captives have all the power, and that resistence is a futile gesture, because they already know the answers to the questions they are asking. From what I've read, this takes a fair amount of time and effort, and thus the 48 hour presumption generally makes it pointless, unless you are holding the chief intelligence officer or similar.

As the OP pointed out on the otherhand, waterboarding, threatening family members and so on will make anyone confess to anything. A journalist tried being waterboarded voluntarily recently, and he was told that most victims last less than 15 mins, he barely lasted 3.

As such, it seems to me that both fast and slow methods would be ineffective, and I've already covered the legal/ moral implications, so I voted no.

ynotdu

Leaving morality out of it,torture has proven to be totally unrealiable as a means to getting to the truth.
reason being a sleep deprived tortured prisoner will eventually say Anything he/she perceives the torturor wants to hear.

A story i really like from the vietnam war was a captured soldier made a Propaganda video for the Viet-cong.He was much villified for his weakness by right wing Americans,until the pentagon noticed he was blinking his eyes in an unatural way.

in fact it turned out he was blinking the word torture in the manner of morse code!:)

clevour guy!

Lockstep

IMO it's much better to have high professional standards which can be broken in an emergency, than to lower standards across the board.

minidazzler

I'm against torture for information.

As punishment for a proven crime however, I am of the go ahead and do it. (Only for heinous crimes of course.

citizen_p

i always thought it was youd be dipped backwards into a tank of water
not this:
http://www.spike.com/video/waterboarding/3000598
(note: he is a willing participant. he works for current.. sky channel 183)
not the original video i was thinking of..... i seen a guy last less than a minute with a continous pour of water( willing as well some reporters demand respect )

Delta Kilo

There was a series called SAS survival secrets where they went through an interrogation process in great detail, including stipulations of the Geneva Convention, techniques used by interrogators and techniques used by the soldiers to cope with the process.

Can be found on Youtube. The guys are all ex-SAS btw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nWSabGg3GI

Hagar

As soldiers can we support torture of other soldiers, even if they are from the other side?

If it is permissible for us to torture our enemies then it must be permissible for them to torture us?

For us to put ourselves forth as the bearers of freedom and democracy and then torture human beings there is something seriously wrong.

Let's be honest, we can all afford a few more cents per litre of petrol. That is what it's about, isn't it?

Personal opinion, non-mod post, just a 5/8th.

Manic Moran

Leaving morality out of it,torture has proven to be totally unrealiable as a means to getting to the truth.
reason being a sleep deprived tortured prisoner will eventually say Anything he/she perceives the torturor wants to hear.

I think the reason that torture has remained in service is that it does come out with the truth often enough to still be worth it. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't last 6 hours, let alone 48, myself. The two British Tornado pilots from the 1991 war don't hold the fact that they were tortured against their Iraqi captors: From their point of view, they had information and the Iraqis wanted it.

As an example of a time when 'enhanced techniques' can work, see for example, that incident in Iraq where a senior American officer, convinced that one of his captives had time-sensitive information, put a pistol to the captive's head, then fired into the wall next to his head. Captive talked, the information was correct, and the colonel (LTC West) was credited with saving the lives of a number of people under his command. He was also court-martialled and removed from the service.

Outside of truth sera, and I'm not sure how effective those are either, it seems that there will be always some circumstances where torture is the only method which entails having a chance of getting information quickly. Hence the moral dilemma which has hit everyone.

NTM

weepee

I remember around late 76/77 the Brits doing a 'round up' in the area where I lived, more than likely to bring in some of their informers for debriefing, but at the same time, about 50 people were dragged away.

The base they used was an old industrial mill, and about 8 of us were frog marched into a very long corridor and placed in what I can only describe as tall school lockers. It was impossible to sit down or indeed move, outside the shouting and banging was incredible.

I remember having to wedge my knees against the door of the locker, a position I couldnt change what with cramp and the extreme cold, how long I remained like this is impossible to say, it could have been minutes, it felt like hours.

I became aware that the troops were working their way down the lockers, with shouting and banging right outside. Next I knew, my door was opened and I fell into the corridor.
A dirty sandbag was forced over my head, and I was lifted by one on either side, and dragged along the corridor into a side room, and placed in a chair, continuously being shouted at, ie, 'Irish bastard'-'****ing terrorist'-'we're gonna set you up with the loyalists'-'your dad will be dead tomorrow', that sort of thing. Most of the questions they shouted, I didnt understand, never mind know an answer to.

I was pulled up off the chair and onto a table, and held there, water was dripped onto the sandbag, which had been pulled taut by someone, while the other two held me down.
I did believe I was going to die, and am not afraid to say I was crying uncontrollably.

I was pulled up into a sitting position and the sandbag was taken off, the shouting and banging of batons was deafening, I couldnt see who or how many were in the room, but at a guess, Id say 4/5.

Anyway, I recieved a slap across the face which knocked me off the table, followed by 2 extreme boots to the stomach, which put me in the corner of the room. All but one of the troops left, he simply sat at the table smoking, after about, god knows, 15 minutes,
I controlled my crying and simply lay there curled up in a ball, holding my stomach, shaking from the pain of the boots and the cold.

2 more troops eventually came in and pulled me up, marching me down the corridor and outside, were it was now dark, one of them kept telling me my name and to say nothing or I would be back in, only this time it would be worse, I was pushed out the gate of the base, and told to '**** off'.

In all these years I never heard of that technique being called anything, never mind
'water boarding'. Tho its something I will never forget.

I was about 13 at the time.

Hard Larry

Cheers for that Weepee.

I avoided this thread like the Plague tbh its more at home in the Walt Section...seriously lads a poll on torture?

Heres hoping your post snaps one or two of the pups out of their comfort zone.

iceage

+1 Hard Larry.

As one of the few "brit" posters here, I feel I must at least offer my apologies to Weepee. Atrocious times dictate atrocious behaviour but please do understand I don't offer this as an excuse for that type of behaviour if it took place. I'm not doubting your post, I think you put it up to bring some reality to this thread and I for one thank you for doing so.

weepee

iceage wrote: »

+1 Hard Larry.

As one of the few "brit" posters here, I feel I must at least offer my apologies to Weepee. Atrocious times dictate atrocious behaviour but please do understand I don't offer this as an excuse for that type of behaviour if it took place. I'm not doubting your post, I think you put it up to bring some reality to this thread and I for one thank you for doing so.

Thanks Iceage, but no apologies required. You can be sure it took place alright, in Flax Street Mill Army Base, Ardoyne, Belfast.

There was worse incidents in my life growing up, things I dont wish to discuss here, as they would deflect from the topic. My intentions when
putting pen to paper, as it were, was to highlight what happens when
Government institutions, in this case the British Army, were allowed to
work under 'loose' procedures. When any Government institution, anywhere, is given a free hand, this sort of behaviour happens.

I hold no grudges, for anyone on that day, anymore.

Boston

ex_infantry man wrote: »

well to be honest i think if it needs doin to get the info that they need then work away!!!coz the other side prob would,nt think twice about doin it to you in a combat situation

The justifications that "the enemy would do no better" is what has lead to some of the worse atrocities in history.

weepee

The use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' ie, torture, has many purposes, only one of which is vast amounts of information, which needs trawled over, to see if its accurate.

From experience, I found it was used as a weapon of fear and intimidation, to persuade people not to 'get involved'.

OS119

weepee,

like iceage, i'm a brit and i'm appalled, humiliated and utterly degraded by what was done to you (i was four), i know you don't ask for an apology, but i'm asking you to accept one.

you're entirely correct, maltreatment is what happens when people run out of ideas, panic, or are utterly unsuited to command and responsibility.

its also correct to say that the argument 'torture can play a role when you need time sensitive information RIGHT NOW!' is utter bollocks, primarily because its so unreliable that it has to be checked, and if you've got time to check it it wasn't so time sensitive, and if you've not it'll end up being irrelevent.

again, sorry.

weepee

Thanks OS119, I really wasnt looking anything out of it, Ive no axe to grind with anyone.

That was then, and now is now.

Its a known fact that torture acquired low grade intel and inaccurate information, needless to say, when people are treated to this system of treatment, they will
say anything.

The Bush Administration ordered torture measures to be used, as they were completely out of their depth when dealing with Muslim radicalism.

All it has achieved is to cause more anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and damage Americas claims and image of being the 'good guy', in the propaganda war.

Manic Moran

its also correct to say that the argument 'torture can play a role when you need time sensitive information RIGHT NOW!' is utter bollocks, primarily because its so unreliable that it has to be checked, and if you've got time to check it it wasn't so time sensitive, and if you've not it'll end up being irrelevent.

The fairly publicly known example of LTC West I refer to above (He';s running for Congress, by the way) is a clear counter to that position.

NTM

Boston

Manic Moran wrote: »

The fairly publicly known example of LTC West I refer to above (He';s running for Congress, by the way) is a clear counter to that position.

NTM

A stopped clock is right twice a day, it's till broken though.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

The fairly publicly known example of LTC West I refer to above (He';s running for Congress, by the way) is a clear counter to that position.

NTM

As I understand it from various online news reports on this case, the Iraqi prisoner was beaten before West discharged his pistol next to the prisoner's head.

Acoording to this piece:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36116

At his preliminary hearing, West acknowledged he allowed two soldiers to beat an Iraqi policeman who refused to reveal details of an ambush plot and fired his pistol near the man's head, threatening to kill him.

As a serving US military officer, Lt Col West was subject to the provisions of the UN Convention on Torture, to which the US is a signatory.

Article 1.1 of the Convention defines torture in this way

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

It's clear that by this definition West admitted he subjected his prisoner to both physical and mental torture.

As for the claim that the information gained prevented an ambush and saved lives, well we've only West's own word for that, and he's hardly unbiased. In any case, Article 2.2 of the Convention states (my emphasis):

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

The Convention also requires all parties to it to make torture a criminal offence and to prosecute torturers. In my opinion, West deserved to be prosecuted and got off very lightly with a $5,000 fine and early retirement.

Manic Moran

I'm not arguing the legality of what he did under any circumstances. I'm saying that it is an example of an incident which seems to have worked.

NTM

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not arguing the legality of what he did under any circumstances. I'm saying that it is an example of an incident which seems to have worked.

First of all, we don't know it "worked". Even the website I linked too, which is generally extremely favourable to West in its reporting, can only say:

Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn't talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman's head, prompting a flow of information that led to arrests and the possible foiling of a deadly attack. (my emphasis)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35702

So, all we know is that the prisoner, in order to stop the torture he was being subjected to, gave information which may or may not have prevented an ambush and which led to the arrest of a number of other people, the guilt or innocence of whom we know nothing at all about.

Secondly, even if it did "work", so what? Does the end justify the means? The Convention on Torture is clear on that point - it does not, under any circumstances, and West is a torturer, nothing more.

Stev_o

Is there any proof to say that torturing suspects has lead to finding out solid information and i mean proper information not some bs we would all say just to stop the pain.

Btw just in case no one has seen what water boarding is there's a 10 min short demonstration and discussion here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0SnqfFXc1k

Manic Moran

Does the end justify the means? The Convention on Torture is clear on that point - it does not, under any circumstances, and West is a torturer, nothing more.

As I said, I do not argue the legality of the situation. But the moral aspect is far fuzzier. The end will always justify the means if the end is important enough. We just all have differing scales depending on what we're focused on at any one time. Does protecting life justify shooting people? Look at that furore over the Abbeyleix incident. Obviously a lot of people thought that the end did not justify that means there. But others did. The law is clear, though. Legal. You'll even find such debate over the simple question of 'does one really have to obey all traffic laws when one is in a hurry to get to the hospital?' You'll find people on both sides of that fence as well.

The whole aporcryphal 'ends/means' question is so famous simply because there is no truly honest simple answer. Similarly, I'm not sure there can ever be any legislation which can clearly cover, in black and white, every conceivable circumstance.

NTM

marco murphy

ex_infantry man wrote: »

well to be honest i think if it needs doin to get the info that they need then work away!!!coz the other side prob would,nt think twice about doin it to you in a combat situation

Wow that really makes sense.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I said, I do not argue the legality of the situation. But the moral aspect is far fuzzier. The end will always justify the means if the end is important enough.

Actually, it's not at all clear to me what you're arguing.

You started off by citing the West case as one where torture "worked". When we look in to the facts, however, we find this is at best doubtful.

Anyway, leaving aside the moralities of the issue, even on a purely pragmatic level, I would argue West was still wrong for these reasons:

(1) He claimed he tortured his prisoner to protect his men. But if he was justified in beating and subjecting a prisoner to a mock execution, wouldn't any opposing force holding US soldiers prisoner be likewise justified in doing the same to them, based on West's actions?

(2) As we have ample experience of here in Ireland, actions like West's are the best recruiting sergeant the insurgents have. His actions and others like them on the part of US forces serve to inflame animosity towards US troops and inevitably result in more US casualties.

(3) He was teaching his men by example that mistreating prisoners in this way is acceptable. If they had gone on to follow that example in other situations, he could have been the cause of them being prosecuted and imprisoned for torture in turn.

OS119

gizmo555 wrote: »

Actually, it's not at all clear to me what you're arguing.

You started off by citing the West case as one where torture "worked". When we look in to the facts, however, we find this is at best doubtful.

Anyway, leaving aside the moralities of the issue, even on a purely pragmatic level, I would argue West was still wrong for these reasons:

(1) He claimed he tortured his prisoner to protect his men. But if he was justified in beating and subjecting a prisoner to a mock execution, wouldn't any opposing force holding US soldiers prisoner be likewise justified in doing the same to them, based on West's actions?

(2) As we have ample experience of here in Ireland, actions like West's are the best recruiting sergeant the insurgents have. His actions and others like them on the part of US forces serve to inflame animosity towards US troops and inevitably result in more US casualties.

(3) He was teaching his men by example that mistreating prisoners in this way is acceptable. If they had gone on to follow that example in other situations, he could have been the cause of them being prosecuted and imprisoned for torture in turn.

(3) is a legal/moral point. its got nothing to do with whether the threat, and application, of extreme physical pain and emotional distress can produce usable information in a very short time frame and whether the information gained is worth the price you pay for the method used to gain it.

i believe its, respectively, rarely, and very rarely.

MM's point is not about torture/not torture per se, but that because, on occasion - though i would suggest its more through luck than judgement - it can produce immediately useful results, it can be seen as a 'lesser' evil. a 'its bad, but what happens if i don't do it?' question.

gizmo555

OS119 wrote: »

(3) is a legal/moral point.

Not really - my point is not whether West's torture should be illegal. Whether one agrees or not, the status quo is that it is illegal. West's justification for his actions was that he wanted to protect his men. By setting this example for his men, he put them at risk of being prosecuted and imprisoned, if they mistakenly believed his treatment of this prisoner was generally acceptable.

OS119 wrote: »

MM's point is not about torture/not torture per se, but that because, on occasion - though i would suggest its more through luck than judgement - it can produce immediately useful results, it can be seen as a 'lesser' evil. a 'its bad, but what happens if i don't do it?' question.

The example MM gave is very poor, because there's no proof that the prisoner provided any useful information and in fact, one NCO at West's hearing specifically denied that he had:

Intelligence information indicated Hamoody was involved in plots to attack U.S. troops, several soldiers testified, although one sergeant said there was no evidence of it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35702

r3nu4l

ynotdu wrote: »

Leaving morality out of it,torture has proven to be totally unrealiable as a means to getting to the truth.
reason being a sleep deprived tortured prisoner will eventually say Anything he/she perceives the torturor wants to hear.

Another well-known problem with sleep deprivation is that the prisoner often becomes confused as to what they are saying and can contradict themselves even when they are trying to tell the truth.

The result of contradictions in the prisoners story is the accusation of lying when the prisoner may not even be aware that they did. Of course, 'lying' then results in more stress positions, more sleep deprivation etc. and so it continues.

Unfortunately, it also seems to be the case that despite intel becoming out of date in 48 hours, prisoners continue to undergo these interrogation methods until they are 'broken' simply to ensure that the prisoner becomes totally subdued and unwilling/unable to mount resistance or defiance. That's when they are used for propaganda videos.

So torture is not just about getting intel, it's about breaking spirit and getting propaganda videos made imo.

Manic Moran

Actually, it's not at all clear to me what you're arguing.

Not so much 'arguing' as 'musing.' We are all agreed that torture (as defined by a fairly arbitrary line) is illegal. I would like to think I will never torture a prisoner under my control nor allow anyone else to. However, on the moral aspect, I wonder if we are not doing a disservice by arbitrarily setting a line on what is or is not acceptable, and keeping that same line in place no matter what the possible benefits may be.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The example MM gave is very poor, because there's no proof that the prisoner provided any useful information and in fact, one NCO at West's hearing specifically denied that he had

I picked it because it was a fairly well-known incident which garnered quite a bit of support, to include from almost a hundred congresscritters. More obscure instances such as those carried out by the Egyptian Ministry of Internal Security (or whatever) tend not to be quite so well publicised and evaluated as to their effectiveness.

However, if will go back almost two decades, look to John Nichol, one of the British pilots shot down over Iraq. He's open about it: He was tortured, broke, and talked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/dec/07/features11.g21

It's not the torture that seems to bother him: "Classic stuff, sleep deprivation, mindless beating, burning tissue paper stuffed down your neck," but the fact that he talked. "I always hesitate to use the word torture. People have their fingernails cut out and hot irons shoved up their arse." So why didn't they do that to him? "Probably because I gave in before they got there."

I recall him giving a TV interview wherin he also said he had no hard feelings towards the guys doing the torturing: He had information, they wanted it. Just business.

NTM

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

I picked it because it was a fairly well-known incident which garnered quite a bit of support . . .

However, if will go back almost two decades, look to John Nichol, one of the British pilots shot down over Iraq. He's open about it: He was tortured, broke, and talked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/dec/07/features11.g21

I recall him giving a TV interview wherin he also said he had no hard feelings towards the guys doing the torturing: He had information, they wanted it. Just business.

This is about as useful an example of the "effectiveness" of torture as the West case and with respect, you were rather selective in what you quoted, nor did you mention that at the time of the interview Nichol was earning a living as an after dinner speaker talking about how he'd been tortured. Here are the paragraphs following the one you cited:


They beat him up regularly, and badly. The worst part was listening to the screams down the corridor and knowing that he was next. "I knew I would give in. I knew some stuff, like what target we were supposed to be hitting the next day, but nothing that mattered to anybody or would change the price of butter. I realised pretty quickly that the Iraqis weren't really sure what to ask us. They captured us, thought they should probably torture us, but to what end? It was important to try and hold out for a while. If you broke first they could lean on you really hard."

So one day, facing beatings, burning newspaper down his back once again - and as electric shock treatment made its way down the corridor - he decided to tell them about the price of butter.

One of the nice things about Nichol is his honesty (or could it be another marketing ploy - "Nichol tells it how it is"?).

Manic Moran

It is not for him to say what information is worth anything to the enemy, is it? Intel people make their living out of piecing together small pieces of apparently insignificant information. This gets drilled into us frequently. You'll even see posts frequently moderated on this board for 'revealing un-necessary information', regardless of how innocuously it was posted. And if it were so insignificant, it would be impossible to verify, so why not lie? Yet he didn't. He broke. End of.

NTM

Hagar

Manic Moran wrote: »

I recall him giving a TV interview wherin he also said he had no hard feelings towards the guys doing the torturing: He had information, they wanted it. Just business.

I call shennagins. I can believe he said it, I cannot believe he means it. Given the opportunity and immunity I'd say he'd beat them to a pulp. Just like anybody with a pair of balls would.

iceage

Well you would wouldn't you....given 5 minutes in a room, and the shoe on the other foot, I'm afraid we all would if given the chance.

petergfiffin

I wonder to what extent torture is actually about gaining valuable intelligence and how much of it is just about "teaching them a lesson"? :rolleyes:

Ping Chow Chi

To be honest niether of the examples above would sway me into thinking that torture is worth it.

If these are the most clear cut, concrete examples of where evidence from torture saved lifes or gained usefull information, its a pretty poor show.

Manic Moran

If these are the most clear cut, concrete examples of where evidence from torture saved lifes or gained usefull information, its a pretty poor show.

Where would one find such evidence, were it to exist? It's not as if governments or organisations are likely to put out press releases or academic papers on any incidents where they conducted 'enhanced interrrogations' with success. The more open governments will rarely carry out such practises, and when they do won't make a big show of it for PR reasons, and the governments that don't care about PR to any extent don't tend to have much transparency to release information anyway. The fact that it is in everyone's interest who many conduct such interrogations to actively not release the information mitigates against the public availability of any smoking gun saying "Look! It worked in this high-stakes instance" but cannot be taken as proof that they don't work.

NTM

MickJB1989

Does anyone know if it's possible to get a hold of the court martial trial transcripts for this West character?

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

Where would one find such evidence, were it to exist?

There is evidence that CIA torturing of suspects actively hindered previously succesful interrogations:

The testimony of a key witness at a Senate hearing Wednesday raised serious questions about the truthfulness of former President George W. Bush's own personal defense of the CIA's brutal interrogation program. Former FBI agent Ali Soufan also indicated that the harsh interrogation techniques may actually have hindered the collection of intelligence, causing a high-value prisoner to stop cooperating.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/

Also, the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, has flatly and repeatedly contradicted claims by Dick Cheney that torture yielded information which disrupted large scale terrorist attacks in the US:

Robert Mueller, who was appointed by Bush in 2001 and remains FBI director under Obama, delivered that assessment at the end of this December 2008 article in "Vanity Fair" on torture:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

That stands in direct contrast to Dick Cheney’s recent claim that torture has been “enormously valuable” in terms of “preventing another mass-casualty attack against the United States.”


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/probes-of-bush-administration/flashback-bushs-fbi-director-said-torture-didnt-foil-any-terror-plots/

ynotdu

Ironicly i am too tired at the moment to post too much of a coherent post.
I am enjoying the thread though and everybody is i believe posting in good faith,and soldiors here are putting forward a lot that shows deep thought.
i often think the average joe private is expected to understand the finer points of war too much,since many are from poor uneducated backgrounds.

I just wanted to lighten the thread before the next stage of battle by injecting some humour.
If this guy was,nt sleep deprived or tortured what explains this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

p1akuw47h5r3it

ynotdu wrote: »

Ironicly i am too tired at the moment to post too much of a coherent post.
I am enjoying the thread though and everybody is i believe posting in good faith,and soldiors here are putting forward a lot that shows deep thought.
i often think the average joe private is expected to understand the finer points of war too much,since many are from poor uneducated backgrounds.

I just wanted to lighten the thread before the next stage of battle by injecting some humour.
If this guy was,nt sleep deprived or tortured what explains this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

I know this is off topic but how do these ppl mess up so much... Like we've all heard of so caleed "Bushisms" and then there is this... I know it wouldn't be easy talkin in front of cameras, journalist etc. but seriously it is just ridiculous!

ynotdu

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I know this is off topic but how do these ppl mess up so much... Like we've all heard of so caleed "Bushisms" and then there is this... I know it wouldn't be easy talkin in front of cameras, journalist etc. but seriously it is just ridiculous!

Hi,ya DanDan i dont think Donald Rumsfeld is in any way off topic when it comes to the subject of torture.

He was certainly a patriot and high achiever throughout his career.
He was also somewhere to the right of Ghengis khan!

He was the only secratary of defense to hold the posistion over two separate administrations and fell only eight days short of being the longest serving sec of defense next to Robert McNamara(who held the post for almost the entire vietnam war)

Despite many disagreeing with him he upheld what became known as the Rumsfeld doctrine of sending as few troops as possible into Afghanistan and then Iraq.

He said at a town hall meeting of soldiors who were heckling him about the shortage of almost everything they needed: "We send the army we have,not the army we need"

He was held personally responsible by the U.S senate armed services commitee for the torture and prisoner abuse in Abugrab prison by a vote of 17-0. to which he replied "the events happened on my watch,i take responsibility"(to me he was just saying the *right thing*there,He had let it be known to the army he at least would turn the blind eye to whatever techniques were used)

the problem with torture is once a country uses it they lose the moral high ground and become no better than the enemy.

back to Rumsfeld,in an unprecedented move eight retired Generals and Admirals signed a document calling for Rumsfeld to resign/be sacked.
it is widely reported that he was a highly despised figure in the Pentagon and the U.S army before Bush accepted his resignation(sacked him!:) something bush said he would never do!)

if you are interested a full Bio of him can be found at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld

weepee

Donald Rumsfeld-a Patriot! Thats a good one.

He and his ilk, were bigger enemies of the United States than any airline hijacker.

gizmo555

weepee wrote: »

Donald Rumsfeld-a Patriot! Thats a good one.

He and his ilk, were bigger enemies of the United States than any airline hijacker.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Samuel Johnson.

ynotdu

Cambridge Dictionary definition of the word patriot:
A person who loves their country and if nescessary will fight for it.
Rumsfelds military career:
Rumsfeld served in the United States Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a naval aviator and flight instructor. His initial training was in the North American SNJ Texan basic trainer after which he transitioned to flying the Grumman F9F Panther fighter. In 1957, he transferred to the Naval Reserve and continued his naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and retired with the rank of Captain in 1989.[9]
Jazus i dont think i could have been anymore critical of the old goat if i tried!

yet the only thing that was construed as being favourable towards him.the word patriot gets singled out????

Isnt that a technique used by propagandists

weepee

gizmo555 wrote: »

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Samuel Johnson.

Ya see, without looking that up, I would have said, Oscar Wilde.

ynotdu

weepee wrote: »

Ya see, without looking that up, I would have said, Oscar Wilde.

I personally have nothing to declare but my Genious!;)

gizmo555

Glenn Greenwald of Salon is the best US journalist I've come across writing on this subject.

If any one is in any doubt that discussing the effectiveness of torture is completely missing the point, I'd urge you read some of his articles on the topic starting with this one, from which this is a short extract (emphasis is mine);

The debate over whether torture extracted valuable information is, in my view, a total sideshow, both because (a) it inherently begs the question of whether legal interrogation means would have extracted the same information as efficiently if not more so (exactly the same way that claims that warrantless eavesdropping uncovered valuable intelligence begs the question of whether legal eavesdropping would have done so); and (b) torture is a felony and a war crime, and we don't actually have a country (at least we're not supposed to) where political leaders are free to commit serious crimes and then claim afterwards that it produced good outcomes. If we want to be a country that uses torture, then we should repeal our laws which criminalize it, withdraw from treaties which ban it, and announce to the world (not that they don't already know) that, as a country, we believe torture is justifiable and just. Let's at least be honest about what we are. Let's explicitly repudiate Ronald Reagan's affirmation that "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture" and that "[e]ach State Party is required [] to prosecute torturers."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/29/post/index.html

ynotdu

gizmo555 wrote: »

Glenn Greenwald of Salon is the best US journalist I've come across writing on this subject.

If any one is in any doubt that discussing the effectiveness of torture is completely missing the point, I'd urge you read some of his articles on the topic starting with this one, from which this is a short extract (emphasis is mine);

The debate over whether torture extracted valuable information is, in my view, a total sideshow, both because (a) it inherently begs the question of whether legal interrogation means would have extracted the same information as efficiently if not more so (exactly the same way that claims that warrantless eavesdropping uncovered valuable intelligence begs the question of whether legal eavesdropping would have done so); and (b) torture is a felony and a war crime, and we don't actually have a country (at least we're not supposed to) where political leaders are free to commit serious crimes and then claim afterwards that it produced good outcomes. If we want to be a country that uses torture, then we should repeal our laws which criminalize it, withdraw from treaties which ban it, and announce to the world (not that they don't already know) that, as a country, we believe torture is justifiable and just. Let's at least be honest about what we are. Let's explicitly repudiate Ronald Reagan's affirmation that "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture" and that "[e]ach State Party is required [] to prosecute torturers."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/29/post/index.html

Hi,ya again gizmo555,very interesting post and links.
I went beyond the quotes you chose and followed the links:
Glenn Greenwalds post is actualy his Blog,He is Liberal in his politics(fair enough so am i)

I also read the link from his blog to the Washinton post(also known to be Liberal in its outlook)

The more i learn about Ronald Reagan the more i have become to admire him,far from being the bumbling idiot he was portrayed as, it seems to me that before his brain illness kicked in he was not just a genuionly nice guy but also very clevour.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed seems like an Asshole(but that could be me buying into propaganda)

fine words and a countrys constitution are very sacred and should be upheld by all who believe in and respect Democracy as a matter of principle.

still despite that i think i would fire off a gun beside a prisoners head in the heat of the moment if i thought it would save lives.

there are no absolutes in war,unfortunatly:(