Why does America need Secret Prisons?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You can come up with extreme examples to justify breaking any law, and you should have to for this one.

What about high gasoline prices? I can't afford to spend as much on beef jerky and grape soda at the gas station anymore...

[Happy Monkey]

It may seem like it, but high gasoline prices aren't a law.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Let's suppose you personally know that a 100 megaton nuclear weapon is located in Central Park and is going to go off in 24 hours. You can't search the entire park, as it is over 800 acres. You have as prisoner, a man who knows where the bomb is because he placed it. He is not responding to feather tickling the bottom of his feet.

As a number of folks have mentioned, in this extremely unlikely case someone will have to break the law to get the job done. This is not, however, the day to day WOT and sounds a little too tv to me. We need to be seen grinding this out day by day following rule of law because that is what we claim we want for them. Compromising principles seems to be the touch-stone of this "adult" administration.

um sorry Flint but I did say it more efficiently

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Griff

um sorry Flint but I did say it more efficiently

(I was quoting myself from an unrelated thread on the philospohy board from several months ago... Don't you know: more syllables = more righter?)

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

[size="1"]... more syllables = more righter?

Ask tw. :p

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's why we need this debate.

Let's suppose you personally know that a 100 megaton nuclear weapon is located in Central Park and is going to go off in 24 hours. You can't search the entire park, as it is over 800 acres. You have as prisoner, a man who knows where the bomb is because he placed it. He is not responding to feather tickling the bottom of his feet.

If your interrogator is feather tickling, then you did not use a professional. You are therefore responsible for an intelligence failure. Meanwhile, sit the prisoner in Central Park. If he will not talk, he was not going to talk under torture. Torture him and he will tell you it is in Jersey City and San Francisco - and then relish his little victory. Torture him and he will say anything to be harmful because he hates you even more.

Meanwhile, professional interrogators are furious that you have so muddied the waters - made it virtually impossible to get accurate facts - because you tortured him.

Amount of talk is akin to an assembly line of junk. Credibility - not lots of words - is essential. Even if he said something truthful, the intelligence is useless because it is just another lie as he continues to lie just to hate you. Torture him and you can kiss the city goodbye. By torturing, you are making him only hate more. That is the last thing you want if you want to save the city.

In reading detailed accounts of what prisoners said, accurate facts arise because the prisoner is relaxed, can be observed as honest or deceitful, and often assumed his interrogator already knew this stuff. Again, credibility. Again, this is how professionals get accurate facts.

It is a 'big dic' assumption that only action - torture - will get results. Best results are obtained from inaction or less action - simply letting him talk. You want to save Central Park? Torturing him guarantees the city's destruction. 'Big dics' restort to their knowledge base - their feelings. 'Big dics' can be saved. They get educated by professional interrogators. Useful information comes from caring or from accidental disclosures. Neither can happen with torture. To a 'big dic' mentality, that is inaction. 'Big dices' assume only action gets results which is why 'big dics' assume torture is useful. Unfortunately you do same. Implied in your post is this assumption that only physical action will get results when reality says the complete opposite.

How many Orange Alerts did it take before you realized why this administration had no facts? Torture causes lots of talk - and it was all lies and more Orange Alerts.

UT, if you torture that bomber, you have guaranteed the city's destruction. It should be obvious. Scary is when that is not obvious. The term 'big dic' is obscene, belittling, and accurately depicts those who somehow magically assume torture must work. Don't be a 'big dic'. A 'big dic' attitude - this need for action in direct contradiction to intelligence - would absolutely condemn the city. You want smart interrogators. You don't want muddied waters. That means no torture.

[Rush Limballs]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It may seem like it, but high gasoline prices aren't a law.

But we're working on it. The situation should be under our control again after the first week in Nov.


Then we'll have it up to $6 or so

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

As a number of folks have mentioned, in this extremely unlikely case someone will have to break the law to get the job done. This is not, however, the day to day WOT and sounds a little too tv to me. We need to be seen grinding this out day by day following rule of law because that is what we claim we want for them. Compromising principles seems to be the touch-stone of this "adult" administration.

If a case like UT's scenario were to occur, there's always a Presidential pardon to free the interrogator, as long as they are tried in this country.
That leaves the law against torture, for normal situations, and an out for the extraordinary.

[richlevy]

War involves moral choices. It's ironic that while we have people screaming about 'moral relativity' here in the states, everyone ignores the moral compromises made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From here.

MINNEAPOLIS – John Morris, a military chaplain, stands at the front of a crowded conference room dressed in desert fatigues and tan combat boots, commanding his audience's attention with a tone barely above a whisper. Addressing some 30 Minnesota church leaders, Major Morris opens with a story about his time in Anbar Province, an insurgent stronghold in western Iraq. "When the insurgents found out a new unit was there, they would walk a child in front of our convoys," he recalls. "What does a good Minnesota person do? Stop. You only do that one time, because you get ambushed and someone gets maimed or killed."
It's a chilling story, which Morris heard from numerous soldiers in combat, meant to convey the reality of war - and the kind of psychological stress soldiers go through in the field and when they come home.

Having to run down a child to save your comrades is a difficult choice, and I'm not going to condemn anyone in that situation for the choice they made. So would I want to see a law enacted giving soldiers the right to run over children? No. Some things have to be done in war, but they are the exceptions to the rules of human decency.

Noone has answered the question as to what we do with people we torture (or strenously question) and who turn out to be innocent. What compensation will there be for making people feel as if they are drowning over and over again? What if we set the price at a million dollars? If we receive howls of outrage over such a great sum of money we could ask this question? How sure will you be before you start the torture that you have the right guy? Because if you aren't willing to be a million dollars that you're wrong, you shouldn't be torturing the guy.

Of course, this will not happen. The US will find a way to duck responsibility, just like we did in the Arar case.

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria in 1970, came to Canada in 1987. After earning bachelor's and master's degrees in computer engineering, Arar worked in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer.

On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport.

When Arar returned to Canada more than a year later, he said he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that they practise torture.

Of course, anyone who knows our administration knows that once they decide on a course of action, finding out that they are acting on bad information will not stop them, bless their dedicated little hearts.

Originally Posted by Undertoad
The notion that someone will tell you "anything" in order to stop being waterboarded, seems to me to be proof it's useful. If enough people tell you "anything" you can clearly put their various "anythings" together to figure out which anythings are true and which are not. Perhaps the orange alerts are because there weren't enough people being waterboarded.

UT, allow me to redirect you through another thought process. Let's take off our intelligence thinking caps and put on our counterintelligence thinking caps. Even "If enough people tell you anything", can you really determine the facts from that? There certainly exists cover stories and if the interrogators aren't sure about the cover stories; then, an interrogation subject can present a cover within a cover: nearly everyone interrogated may present the same information. What if many of those subjects have been given disinformation from their leaders by design? Don't think it could happen? What if at the onset of the war in Iraq, many Americans were tortured to find out whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What do you think "enough people" would have said? Disinformation needn't come from just the enemy. Corroborating evidence, not just personal testimonies, is key to determining the facts surrounding major threats. This is somewhat analogous to the unreliability of eyewitness accounts in civilian court cases where the veracity of those testifying is in question and the case is largely made on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when pain compliance; or, panic (fear of death) compliance techniques are used, interrogation subjects are more likely to respond with less verifiable information. Other techniques, which break down resistance more gradually, not only allow for behavior comparisons with other interrogated subjects; also, comparisons of the subject's own behavior over time and the discovery of corroborating evidence.

I severely doubt that the CIA set up the means to do this sort of thing to 14-16 individuals if it doesn't work. I bet they know a lot better about whether it is effective than we do. I do not believe they would set up such an infrastructure for the simple joy of torturing bad guys.

I submit for your consideration that the CIA is subject to political pressures that far exceed those experienced by the Armed Forces. The clandestine nature of it's operations means that it's boss and it's oversight are, for all practical purposes, one and the same in the Commander in Chief. The CIA will train for and execute a specialized operation against a single individual if directed to do so by the President. They do NOT enjoy torturing people anymore than soldiers enjoy killing people; but, both will follow orders rather than be tried for treason. Look at how many thousands of soldiers were willing to kill based upon the false premise of WMD and terrorist sponsorship in Iraq. Do you really find it so hard to believe that a few CIA agents would torture interrogation subjects whether the results were reliable or not?

Let's suppose you personally know that ... in 24 hours ... What would be appropriate?

The answer to your question lies in the concept embodied by the words "that shocks the conscience." It is, albeit, highly subjective. Nontheless, humanity weighs the shock value of "using any means necessary" against the shock value of potential losses entailed by the perpetrator's actions. The individual making the hands-on decision is a product of the world community [i.e. it takes a community] and acts in consonance with their own level of understanding and conscience. If the situation has been allowed to deteriorated to the point where the outcome rests with a single individual, whatever the world gets is appropriate.

As for this product of the world community (me), even though I know that the odds are astronomical against gaining useful information in your scenario, I find that the stakes are so high that the needs of the oppressed (i.e. those threatened with destruction) clearly outweigh the needs of the few (i.e. conscientious objectors to the use of any means necessary under all circumstances); or, the needs of the one (i.e. rights and life of perpetrator). I would use all of my interrogation skills to extract as much information as possible while I used all of my medical skills to keep the perpetrator from dying during the interrogation. Rationale: A long shot is better than no shot. Of course, I would conduct the interrogation at ground zero and perish with the perpetrator if unsuccessful. If successful, I would submit myself for adjudication by the world community.

UT, what other questions do you have pertaining to the ethics of interrogation? I certainly don't have all the answers; however, I do have some insights.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Noone has answered the question as to what we do with people we torture (or strenously question) and who turn out to be innocent.

Straight 40 hours, then time-and-a-half for overtime, doubletime on Sunday. Even if they're Jews, time-and-a-half Saturday and Double time Sunday.

Rich, we can only prove them guilty, we can never prove them innocent. If they are released for lack of evidence, they have the smug satisfaction of knowing they beat the system. No monetary compensation.
If you set fees, you'll have lots of scammers acting suspiciously.

NoBoxes, you make a lot of sense.
How much is training and how much did you figured out yourself?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Corroborating evidence, not just personal testimonies, is key to determining the facts surrounding major threats. This is somewhat analogous to the unreliability of eyewitness accounts in civilian court cases where the veracity of those testifying is in question and the case is largely made on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when pain compliance; or, panic (fear of death) compliance techniques are used, interrogation subjects are more likely to respond with less verifiable information. Other techniques, which break down resistance more gradually, not only allow for behavior comparisons with other interrogated subjects; also, comparisons of the subject's own behavior over time and the discovery of corroborating evidence.

ABC News' Brian Ross interviewed a number of CIA, some of whom were against waterboarding, but all of whom agreed that it worked? (Sorry it's via O'Reilly)

Video: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/2...rture-tactics/

Partial transcript: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Q5MTUzYmNlY2Q=

O'REILLY: So in all 14 cases, coerced interrogation methods, being debated in the Senate right now, were used. And in all 14 cases, according to your report, they gave it up.

Now the opposition, you just heard it. Human Rights Watch, ACLU, they say it's garbage. They told them what they want to hear. It wasn't truthful. Is that true?

ROSS: That has happened in some cases where the material that's been given has not been accurate, has been essentially to stop the torture.

In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe.

And in one particular plot, which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles, known as the Library Tower.

O'REILLY: Well, in fact, you say in your report that more than a dozen plots, a dozen al Qaeda plots to kill people were stopped because of the information they got from coerced interrogation?

ROSS: That's what we were told by sources.

O'REILLY: Do you believe that?

ROSS: I do believe that.

[Hippikos]

* Al-Qaedist Abu Zubaydah was captured in March 2002.
* Zubaydah's captors discovered he was mentally ill and charged with minor logistical matters, such as arranging travel for wives and children.
* The President was informed of that judgment by the CIA.
* Two weeks later, the President described Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States."
* Later, Bush told George Tenet, "I said he was important. You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" and asked Tenet if "some of these harsh methods really work?"
* The methods -- torture -- were applied.
* Then, according to Gellman, "Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty."
* At which point, according to Suskind, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target."

As Francis Fukuyama observes in the context of WMD intelligence in his book, the big problem in intelligence isn't the need to find more information it's the difficulty of figuring out which information is true. Simply pumping every person who falls into your hands for everything he "knows" doesn't help.

[headsplice]

Sorry, but I'm gonna call shenanigans again, UT. If Ross were presenting info that O'Reilly disagreed with, he wouldn't be on the show. That isn't to say that all info from the Right that I disagree with is not accurate (that would be convenient, though). However, O'Reilly has too long a history of bullying guests that he disagrees with and flat-out lying for me to consider him or his show a credible source.

[Undertoad]

Don't only listen to the sources you agree with. It's not O'Reilly telling you the information. It's Ross.