Originally Posted by dub2w

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

Originally Posted by FM 34-52 Chapter 1

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government.

Originally Posted by FM 34-52 Chapter 1

Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

Originally Posted by SilverScoober02

I thought this was funny and ironic, considering Dick's current battle he has been waging.



So this would lead one to believe that torture is not a very good method of interrogation?

I'm confused. Isn't it some of you guy's argument that torture is a good means to get information in a short amount of time? Cause it seems to me that for the most part it is not.

I have stated that I don't care about torturing terrorists, but my thought is that if this policy results in one innocent person getting tortured then it is not worth it, especially in light of this page and others testimony of torture not being that effective of a method.

I guess I'm with John McCain on this one. (like so many other issues!)

Originally Posted by 1reguL8NSTi

I agree with you. Like I said before, in certain instances it should be an OPTION but not the rule. Like all things in the military, desperate times require desperate measures. I personally wouldn't want to run the risk of touturing someone who isn't going to give potentially good information (either because they're insurgent/terrorists links aren't verified or because they are informed). Do it only when you're sure they are enemy (100% has/has tried to kill Allied troops) and when you suspect they are knowledgable on certain intel.