Then what is? You still haven't answered the question as to what is a more effective means of gathering intelligence when time is of the essence. You cannot be passive with the detainees or else you'll get absolutely nowhere.

I'm trying to make a point that although certain tortures that are effective at generating answers may be brutal and may not be 100% effective given the discipline of the detainee, it's all we have when national security is on the wire.

 

You have to ask nicely and say please.

 

Huh? And you are still in favor of beating the living crap out of people so that they can tell us what we already know?!?!?!

 

I disagree. We should be more deft when it comes to gathering intelligence through covert means.

For all of you military buffs, Im surprised more wasnt made when The Bush / Cheney team outed a covert CIA operative. Imagine if that had been one of your SF brothers.

 

OK that was officially the most retarded statement ever made in the politics forum. Congrats!!!

You do it so you can verify if the info. is good or not. If they are getting the "verify" questions right (the ones you know the answers to) you can easily get an idea if they going to tell you what you want to know. The POW would have to guess which questions you know the answers to to beat this system which is nearly impossible

 

The word "torture" is the reason people are pissed about this.

Some have a different defenition than others.

Torture to me is sticking bamboo under a detainees fingernails. To some, it's making someone think they are going to drown, or leading a blindfolded man to a curb and telling him you're going to push him off a cliff. Wich I have no problem with.

 

Give the opportunity, we already do this within our capabilities.

But if the opportunity arises where we can detain someone that needs interrogating on the spot, then gathering intelligence through covert means does us no good at that point.

 

1regulatin... I was responding to this brilliant statement you made:


Thanks for the e-tard Rambo claim and the personal attack.

Using common sense, I would presume that the majority of intel we are gathering via torture is to build leads, in-roads, and,yes, to gather intel. I am sure that corroboration is also a factor, but I would be hard-pressed to believe your claim above.

Dont you read Clancy? Gosh

 

I'd still like an alternative from someone, please.

 

How about these two for starters....


http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

 

good to know...

 

I don’t understand why you’re posting those? If you’re suggesting we beat them with a rolled up copy of the Constitution and Geneva’s Conventions then that’s a possibility... especially if you get them right in the solarplexes.

Or do you mean the US Constitution and Article 17 of the 3rd Geneva Convention that does not apply to terrorists? As much as you want them to apply to your terrorist brethren, they are irrelevant in this case. As for them applying to wounded combatants, well who's to say they are wounded and if the combatants are being totured? We can't include Abu Ghurab in this instance because it was a whimsical calamity.

I want an effective alternative to torture by CI agents in order to gain intelligence when time is of the essence and when numerous lives may be at risk because of a possible terrorist attack.

And I’m not nessesarily suggesting torture in the Hollywood sense with hot pokers. And by “time is of the essence” I realize that the combatant may be disciplined enough to withstand a blow to the head. That being said, if an effective means of torture means sleep/social deprivation and starvation, then so be it if it’s the fastest. Wouldn’t you at least support this?

Keep in mind that in the military school world, sleep deprivation and the need for food most often surpasses the tactics used in level C SERE school on the suckiness scale. Also consider that the stressful interrogation methods employed by -authorized- US Army Personnel are manifestly not "torture." And guys, drawing a parallel, even philosophically, between us, bin Laden and terrorists/insurgents in general is assinine.

 

What would you guys like to see done to Zarquawai? I personally would like to see what the Jordanians or Iraqis would do to him when they get ahold of him.

 

We should let the Iraqis give him a trial according to their new rules and punish him accordingly...I have no doubt he'll eventually be killed.

 

You might as well use them to wipe your *** for all the respect you seem to have for those documents.

This hypothetical "impending terrorist situation where time is of the essence" is a completely farcical excuse used to justify the barbarous practices which Dick Cheney has such a hard on to sanction.

All of your arguments completely ignore the core principles this country was founded on, once you toss out presumed innocence, due process, and protection against cruel and unsusual punishment and we will have lost any sense of moral superiority over any despotic regime.

Labeling someone a terrorist before they have committed any crime does all of those things.

I don't have to draw the parallel between us and Hussein, Cheney and Bush do it themselves when they justify the invasion by saying we've gotten rid of his rape rooms and torture chambers, yet they are lobbying hard to protect and defend the fact that we've set up our own.


It's hard to imagine just how far off the scale they will have to go before you guys wise up to the fact that this administration is a bunch of international criminals, and they are in fact no better than the radical islamic jihadists... just better funded.