Sure, I get it

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Murderers, even mass murderers, are interrogated daily without the necessity of torture.

It's not black and white, Bill. Treating captives like human beings rather than dogs (see the link below) isn't going to make us less safe.

There's an interesting article at the [link|http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050711fa_fact4|New Yorker]:

The former F.B.I. official said that he opposed coercion on practical grounds, as much as anything else. \ufffdI don\ufffdt believe these things make successful strategies\ufffdsensory deprivation and such,\ufffd he said. \ufffdThere\ufffds a big lack of knowledge about the mind-set of extremists. Doing these things just makes them more determined to hate us. And eventually they are going to be released. When they are, they\ufffdre going to talk and exaggerate what happened to them. They\ufffdre going to become heroes. So then we\ufffdll have more extremist networks and more suicide bombers.\ufffd He also felt that there was a moral imperative to avoid coercive interrogations. \ufffdWe can\ufffdt go down to the level of our enemies,\ufffd he said. \ufffdIf we do, it\ufffds going to come back at us later on.\ufffd

Officials at the Washington headquarters of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service were also incensed by the use of coercive techniques at Guant\ufffdnamo. Some N.C.I.S. officials are participating in a combined task force preparing detainee cases for eventual prosecution, and they had access to computerized versions of the interrogation logs at Guant\ufffdnamo. When the officials read the details of Qahtani\ufffds interrogation, they had an extraordinary internal dispute.

According to a passage in Vice-Admiral Church\ufffds report that is unclassified but has not been released to the public, in December, 2002, Dr. Michael Gelles, the chief psychologist at the N.C.I.S., spoke with Alberto J. Mora, the Navy\ufffds general counsel, saying that, in his professional opinion, \ufffdabusive techniques\ufffd and \ufffdcoercive psychological procedures\ufffd were being used on Qahtani at Guant\ufffdnamo. Gelles warned of a phenomenon known as \ufffdforce drift,\ufffd in which interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves.

In July, 2004, Mora wrote a memo to Church\ufffds investigative team, in which he recounted his discussion with Gelles. He said that he had found the tactics he had read about in the Qahtani interrogation logs to be \ufffdunlawful and unworthy of the military services.\ufffd Mora argued that these practices \ufffdthreaten the entire military commission process.\ufffd According to the Church report, an N.C.I.S. official subsequently said that if the abusive practices continued \ufffdN.C.I.S. would have to consider whether to remain co-located\ufffd in Guant\ufffdnamo. According to a recent ABC News report, in January, 2003, Mora also told William J. Haynes, the Pentagon\ufffds general counsel, that \ufffdthe use of coercive techniques\ufffd could expose both interrogators and their administrators to criminal prosecution.

[...]

(Emphasis added.)

The solution is to stop using abusive interrogation techniques and to follow the GC. Not to try to define what's permissible and what isn't.

As the former FBI fellow said, eventually the vast majority of these people are going to be released. Do we really want to feed their hatred, or build new hatred, as a result of tactics that usually don't give information that can't be found other ways?

"But what about the nuclear bomb that's going to go off...?"

There's a saying - [link|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html|The Exception Proves the Rule]. The plain meaning of the law holds unless exceptions are explicitly spelled out.

If Mr. X knows the location of a bomb in NYC that will go off in 12 hours, and if Mr. Y is interrogating him, trying to find out where it is and how to disable it, then it seems to me there is no issue. How? Easy. If Mr. Y truly believes he has to use torture, then his superiors should be on-board. If he truly believes there is no other way, then he and his superiors should be willing to take full responsibility for his actions. They shouldn't fear prosecution if the choice is really as dire as it's presented in the hypothetical question. There's no issue.

Have you ever read or seen Fail Safe? Can you imagine General Black arguing that we need to change the law regarding permissible coercive interrogation techniques? I can't.

Cheers,
Scott.

Some we do, some its certain we don't. And I agree that erring on the side of treating everyone well is the best possible solution.

But my point is that the tradeoff is that it will likely cost lives that possibly could have been saved. So while we can sit around and make this a fun discussion, the person responsible and who will be blamed for those lives might have a harder time deciding between those alternatives. Also might have more of a vested interest, since he is also CIC and responsible for the interrogators...in making sure that the rules are clear.

Not saying though, that there wouldn't be endless entertainment value in having GWB try to define what is is in an impeachment proceeding or in the Hague ;-)

Post #267,780 by bepatient 9/16/06 8:52:17 PM Reply	Sure, I get it And when we capture terrorists...I'm sure we're all ok with the fact that whatever they're planning remains their little secret and we continue to treat them like good little soldiers. It means we're better. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,785 by jake123 9/16/06 9:21:31 PM Reply	Well, after all when we capture people who someone thinks is a terrorist, we should of course pull out all the stops until we hear what we want to hear. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #267,788 by Another Scott 9/16/06 9:56:53 PM Reply	It's not like people aren't interrogated all the time. Murderers, even mass murderers, are interrogated daily without the necessity of torture. It's not black and white, Bill. Treating captives like human beings rather than dogs (see the link below) isn't going to make us less safe. There's an interesting article at the [link\|http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050711fa_fact4\|New Yorker]: The former F.B.I. official said that he opposed coercion on practical grounds, as much as anything else. \ufffdI don\ufffdt believe these things make successful strategies\ufffdsensory deprivation and such,\ufffd he said. \ufffdThere\ufffds a big lack of knowledge about the mind-set of extremists. Doing these things just makes them more determined to hate us. And eventually they are going to be released. When they are, they\ufffdre going to talk and exaggerate what happened to them. They\ufffdre going to become heroes. So then we\ufffdll have more extremist networks and more suicide bombers.\ufffd He also felt that there was a moral imperative to avoid coercive interrogations. \ufffdWe can\ufffdt go down to the level of our enemies,\ufffd he said. \ufffdIf we do, it\ufffds going to come back at us later on.\ufffd Officials at the Washington headquarters of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service were also incensed by the use of coercive techniques at Guant\ufffdnamo. Some N.C.I.S. officials are participating in a combined task force preparing detainee cases for eventual prosecution, and they had access to computerized versions of the interrogation logs at Guant\ufffdnamo. When the officials read the details of Qahtani\ufffds interrogation, they had an extraordinary internal dispute. According to a passage in Vice-Admiral Church\ufffds report that is unclassified but has not been released to the public, in December, 2002, Dr. Michael Gelles, the chief psychologist at the N.C.I.S., spoke with Alberto J. Mora, the Navy\ufffds general counsel, saying that, in his professional opinion, \ufffdabusive techniques\ufffd and \ufffdcoercive psychological procedures\ufffd were being used on Qahtani at Guant\ufffdnamo. Gelles warned of a phenomenon known as \ufffdforce drift,\ufffd in which interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves. In July, 2004, Mora wrote a memo to Church\ufffds investigative team, in which he recounted his discussion with Gelles. He said that he had found the tactics he had read about in the Qahtani interrogation logs to be \ufffdunlawful and unworthy of the military services.\ufffd Mora argued that these practices \ufffdthreaten the entire military commission process.\ufffd According to the Church report, an N.C.I.S. official subsequently said that if the abusive practices continued \ufffdN.C.I.S. would have to consider whether to remain co-located\ufffd in Guant\ufffdnamo. According to a recent ABC News report, in January, 2003, Mora also told William J. Haynes, the Pentagon\ufffds general counsel, that \ufffdthe use of coercive techniques\ufffd could expose both interrogators and their administrators to criminal prosecution. [...] (Emphasis added.) The solution is to stop using abusive interrogation techniques and to follow the GC. Not to try to define what's permissible and what isn't. As the former FBI fellow said, eventually the vast majority of these people are going to be released. Do we really want to feed their hatred, or build new hatred, as a result of tactics that usually don't give information that can't be found other ways? "But what about the nuclear bomb that's going to go off...?" There's a saying - [link\|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html\|The Exception Proves the Rule]. The plain meaning of the law holds unless exceptions are explicitly spelled out. If Mr. X knows the location of a bomb in NYC that will go off in 12 hours, and if Mr. Y is interrogating him, trying to find out where it is and how to disable it, then it seems to me there is no issue. How? Easy. If Mr. Y truly believes he has to use torture, then his superiors should be on-board. If he truly believes there is no other way, then he and his superiors should be willing to take full responsibility for his actions. They shouldn't fear prosecution if the choice is really as dire as it's presented in the hypothetical question. There's no issue. Have you ever read or seen Fail Safe? Can you imagine General Black arguing that we need to change the law regarding permissible coercive interrogation techniques? I can't. Cheers, Scott.
Post #267,791 by bepatient 9/16/06 10:32:05 PM Reply	Chuckle statement for effect. Certainly had one I can see. My point is more basic. Here we are in a "moral dilemma" about how to treat enemies that don't share those morals. Yes, it has to be done. I understand that. And its certain that we aren't always going to catch "a live one" and making sure we treat them well should be a priority...but I still can see the side of the argument that asks for clarity in the rules. Here you link to an article that talks about "coercive interrogation" being "maybe" illegal. Well, damn it...is it or isn't it? The inquiring mind of GWB wants to know. It would be better if we could keep secrets, wouldn't it? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,803 by pwhysall 9/17/06 3:09:50 AM Reply	How do you know they're terrorists? After all, if I was sleep deprived and had had a couple of beatings and other "coercive interrogation techniques" applied to me (it's a nice way of saying "torture", Bill) then, if I thought I could make it stop by telling my captor that I was a terrorist, I would. And so would most people, which is why torturing people produces results. Only the results are usually fairly useless. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator]
Post #267,815 by bepatient 9/17/06 10:19:13 AM Reply	Valid point. Some we do, some its certain we don't. And I agree that erring on the side of treating everyone well is the best possible solution. But my point is that the tradeoff is that it will likely cost lives that possibly could have been saved. So while we can sit around and make this a fun discussion, the person responsible and who will be blamed for those lives might have a harder time deciding between those alternatives. Also might have more of a vested interest, since he is also CIC and responsible for the interrogators...in making sure that the rules are clear. Not saying though, that there wouldn't be endless entertainment value in having GWB try to define what is is in an impeachment proceeding or in the Hague ;-) Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,825 by pwhysall 9/17/06 11:06:06 AM Reply	Oh, that's OK then. It'll do the nebulous "saving lives" thing. Break out the bastinado and the rubber hose forthwith! Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator]
Post #267,845 by bepatient 9/17/06 2:51:48 PM Reply	That was nowhere near the point of that post and since you know it...I won't bother to respond. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!