NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9457014/

The abuse, one of the sergeants said, was like a game and a way for soldiers to work out their frustrations. The soldiers said there was a great deal of confusion about what types of treatment were allowed under the Geneva convention, and senior officers provided little guidance.

Again, the military leadership fails our men and women in uniform...who will likely get fingered as "a few bad apples."

Mark my words, the grunts will end up taking the fall for the higher-ups and policy-makers (who were never held accountable in the first place...the exact danger of passing the buck,) and pro-War people will keep saying that those of us against the war disrespect the troops.

Yay conservative bizzarro world!

Ever since I read up on the non-existent punishments on troops responsible for the My Lai massacre and the treatment of those who stopped it, I kind of gave up on the Administration's ability to link the ideals of justice to reality.

It's the atmosphere in DC in general. If you deny a problem, it will go away (or at least won't cost you an election.)

This is why so many of us have been pissed at Bush for not taking responsibility. Crap rolls down hill. A true leader takes responsibility and then maked damn sure that they don't have to take responsibility again. A leader who waves this kind of shit off practically invites it to happen again.

Mark my words, the grunts will end up taking the fall for the higher-ups and policy-makers (who were never held accountable in the first place...the exact danger of passing the buck,)

Probably... did the higher-ups tell the grunts to do this, let alone physically participate? Otherwise, I don't know why they should take the fall.

and pro-War people will keep saying that those of us against the war disrespect the troops.

You and I both know that isn't true. Just because some freaks do that doesn't mean we all do. Being against the war isn't the same as being against the troops, and anyone with an ounce of sense understands that - and there are pro-war people with an ounce of sense.

Yay conservative bizzarro world!

Your posts seem to embrace the idea behind the Anti-Idiot Party less and less, lately. What does being conservative have to do with being bizarre? In fact, wouldn't the generic conservative support things that are the opposite of bizarre, if we're going to be accurately stereotypical? Come back to the light, Gymoor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9457014/



Again, the military leadership fails our men and women in uniform...who will likely get fingered as "a few bad apples."

Mark my words, the grunts will end up taking the fall for the higher-ups and policy-makers (who were never held accountable in the first place...the exact danger of passing the buck,) and pro-War people will keep saying that those of us against the war disrespect the troops.

Yay conservative bizzarro world!

Letting the enlisted hang and fry for the sins of the brass is a tradition as old as My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

Probably... did the higher-ups tell the grunts to do this, let alone physically participate? Otherwise, I don't know why they should take the fall.

Higher ups are responsible for their men. Plus, the article itself makes the case that this was widespread and urged by intelligence operatives. One guy doing something wrong is an abberation. A whole bunch of 'em means something is wrong with the leadership. Plus, as I pointed out, when leaders take responsibility, that means that they now have a personal stake in making sure it doesn't happen again. That's what good leadership is all about. Your men's performance reflects on you.


You and I both know that isn't true. Just because some freaks do that doesn't mean we all do. Being against the war isn't the same as being against the troops, and anyone with an ounce of sense understands that - and there are pro-war people with an ounce of sense.

True, but the pro-war people that make the biggest stink are usually the hysterical "protestors are all traitors!" type. Additionally, I rarely hear the sensible pro-war people telling the to nimrods to stfu.


Your posts seem to embrace the idea behind the Anti-Idiot Party less and less, lately. What does being conservative have to do with being bizarre? In fact, wouldn't the generic conservative support things that are the opposite of bizarre, if we're going to be accurately stereotypical? Come back to the light, Gymoor.

You misinterpreted my usage. Saying a puppy is going to dog heaven doesn't mean heaven is for the dogs. Bizarro conservative world is a world where up means down and conservative ideals are only paid lip-service to.

Finally, you have to admit that this shit is idiotic (the whole point of the Anti-Idiot party.) This does NOT win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, this does NOT spread freedom, and torture does NOT produce dependable intelligence. Sorry if this makes me a tad upset.

Higher ups are responsible for their men. Plus, the article itself makes the case that this was widespread and urged by intelligence operatives. One guy doing something wrong is an abberation. A whole bunch of 'em means something is wrong with the leadership. Plus, as I pointed out, when leaders take responsibility, that means that they now have a personal stake in making sure it doesn't happen again. That's what good leadership is all about. Your men's performance reflects on you.

That's fair, but if all leaders were held responsible for everything that goes wrong under their watch, nobody would want to be a leader anymore. And also, if the torture was urged by intelligence operatives, that's a different story.

True, but the pro-war people that make the biggest stink are usually the hysterical "protestors are all traitors!" type. Additionally, I rarely hear the sensible pro-war people telling the to nimrods to stfu.

Protestors != People Against the War != People Against Soldiers != Traitors. You can't sub in "protestors" for "people against the war," because not everyone against the war is a protestor. Also, the number of people calling protestors traitors is very, very low, comparitively.

You misinterpreted my usage. Saying a puppy is going to dog heaven doesn't mean heaven is for the dogs. Bizarro conservative world is a world where up means down and conservative ideals are only paid lip-service to.

Right, but you seemed to imply, intentionally or unintentionally, that the world was made bizarre by conservatives, let alone that conservatives are bizarre, which, again, stereotypical conservatives are not. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but the wording was poor.

Finally, you have to admit that this shit is idiotic (the whole point of the Anti-Idiot party.)

I thought the Anti-Idiot Party's purpose was to point out how stupid people are that think the merit of a political party is a black and white subject instead of a gray one.

This does NOT win the hearts and minds of Iraqis

Agreed.

this does NOT spread freedom

Agreed.

and torture does NOT produce dependable intelligence

When conducted properly, by an expert who understands how to properly draw information and knows the difference between information that is true and information that is not, it can produce a certain level of dependable intelligence. However, under the current methods, it doesn't help a whole lot.

It's sad what America's military is coming to. Too bad George Bush has been unable to fix it the way he wants to.

When conducted properly, by an expert who understands how to properly draw information and knows the difference between information that is true and information that is not, it can produce a certain level of dependable intelligence

I don't feel torture can ever give truely reliable intelligence. Only to avoid pain and suffering will someone 'crack' under duress- they might tell you where the bomb is, but then again they might tell you their name is 'Susan' on the weekends, so long as it gets you to stop hurting them.

Now, if the interrogater/torturer KNOWS that the person knows where the bomb is- then how can you be sure the infomation is accurate? The 'ticking bomb terrorist' theory- he might be telling you the truth, but he might be putting on the wrong course altogether.

Torture is not reliable.

Torture is reliable - it quite reliably hurts both the torturer and his (ahem) "subject".

You can't tell me soldiers who have emotional breakdowns after interrogation sessions are in good shape to keep... well, to keep doing anything other than weeping. As for someone who's told that electrical wires taped to his penis will kill him if he falls off a small perch or lets his hands drop from a half-crucified position, need I say more?

Torture is reliable - it quite reliably hurts both the torturer and his (ahem) "subject".

You can't tell me soldiers who have emotional breakdowns after interrogation sessions are in good shape to keep... well, to keep doing anything other than weeping. As for someone who's told that electrical wires taped to his penis will kill him if he falls off a small perch or lets his hands drop from a half-crucified position, need I say more?
Well, i was kinda talking about the intelligence part :p but i def agree with what you're saying there too!

I don't feel torture can ever give truely reliable intelligence. Only to avoid pain and suffering will someone 'crack' under duress- they might tell you where the bomb is, but then again they might tell you their name is 'Susan' on the weekends, so long as it gets you to stop hurting them.

Now, if the interrogater/torturer KNOWS that the person knows where the bomb is- then how can you be sure the infomation is accurate? The 'ticking bomb terrorist' theory- he might be telling you the truth, but he might be putting on the wrong course altogether.

Torture is not reliable.

You're looking at this too simply, and assuming that the one conducting the interrogation is psychologically ignorant and can't determine the difference between a lie to save one's skin and the truth. Look at a conversation this way, using your hidden bomb theory as the subject.

Interrogator: Where's the bomb located? You have five seconds.
Terrorist: I don't know. (Assume this is a lie)
Interrogator: Bullshit. Tell me or I'm going to start peeling off your fingernails one by one.
Terrorist: I am telling you the truth, I truly don't know! (Assume this is a lie)
*At this point, the interrogator rips off the fingernail of the terrorist's pinky. The interrogator starts on the next.*
Terrorist: Holy shit, okay, I'll tell you, it's at [insert random location]!
Interrogator: Fuck you, I don't believe you.
*Interrogator slides a bucket of an unknown red liquid across the table.*
Interrogator: Do you know what this is?
Terrorist: No...
Interrogator: It's pig's blood. I understand that being contaminated by this will... inhibit... your pursuit of whatever you call Heaven.
Terrorist: *silent*
*At this point, the interrogator pulls out a small knife and dips it in the mixture.*
Interrogator: The remainder of your fingernails will be removed with this knife. You will then be killed with the knife, and buried under the contents of this bucket. At any time, you may stop me and be thoroughly cleaned by telling me the location of the bomb. If you lie, I am going to cut deeper and slower. If you die before you speak, we will hunt down each and every member of your family and find out what they know... just like this.
*The interrogator moves to cut the next fingernail off. The terrorist, driven by his religion and frightened for the sanctity of his soul, or hoping to protect his family, or not wishing to feel any more pain, interrupts.*
Terrorist: Please, stop, I'm telling you the truth, I swear to Allah!
...or...
Terrorist: Shit, stop, okay, I'll tell you. It's located [insert random location].

*The terrorist may have to feel a shitload of pain, but a bunch of innocents are saved from a bomb.*


You show me a terrorist that wouldn't crack under that kind of pain and wouldn't crack under the threat of religious damnation and could not be read by a professional that understood how to spot truth from lie and would not crack under the threat of his family's death, and I'll stop thinking that torture could definitely work if done properly.

[/hijack]

Holy shit, okay, I'll tell you, it's at [insert random location]!
-snip-
Shit, stop, okay, I'll tell you. It's located [insert random location].

What exactly is the difference? If the "Interrogator" didn't believe the first time why would he believe the second time.

What exactly is the difference? If the "Interrogator" didn't believe the first time why would he believe the second time.

Because there weren't so many threats on the table the first time, and the terrorist may still possess the capacity to lie well. If he threw all the threats on the table before he even started, it comes across as more of a generic statement and a couple of empty threats. That's why it must be taken a step or two at a time. The initial fingernail lets the terrorist know that the interrogator is serious. The additional threats tacked on by a seriously threatening individual hold more water in the terrorist's mind. Also, the more cynical the interrogator seems - and the more unstable - the less likely the terrorist is to test his patience.

Besides, the interrogator may believe him the first time. That's irrelevant. Believing the terrorist immediately simply increases the terrorist's confidence, so to let him know without A) scaring the shit out of the terrorist and B) making absolutely certain that the terrorist is telling the truth is foolhardy, and that is what results in faulty intel from torture.

Because there weren't so many threats on the table the first time, and the terrorist may still possess the capacity to lie well. If he threw all the threats on the table before he even started, it comes across as more of a generic statement and a couple of empty threats. That's why it must be taken a step or two at a time. The initial fingernail lets the terrorist know that the interrogator is serious. The additional threats tacked on by a seriously threatening individual hold more water in the terrorist's mind. Also, the more cynical the interrogator seems - and the more unstable - the less likely the terrorist is to test his patience.

Besides, the interrogator may believe him the first time. That's irrelevant. Believing the terrorist immediately simply increases the terrorist's confidence, so to let him know without A) scaring the shit out of the terrorist and B) making absolutely certain that the terrorist is telling the truth is foolhardy, and that is what results in faulty intel from torture.

But it also ignores the fact that if carried on to a certain extent, the subject will most likely tell the torturer whatever they want to hear. In fact, they might believe it themselves. Torture isn't really very much about information extraction, but behavioral enforcement. You punish someone because they won't act the way you want them to (i.e. give information).

Furthermore, if the person does not know the exact information wanted, and denies this at first but is tortured for said information, the mind in it's own way of self preservation (strong instinct, hard to suppress under duress), would manufacture an answer that the torturer wants, to the point where the subject believes it. Trauma victims are somewhat the same as well, particularly when their memory of the trauma event is either glossed over or replaced by something else, usually a rationalization of the event away.

If your torturer was trained to detect truth or a lie based on the subject's own stress and conviction, they will be most likely fooled when the subject's mind has begun the core self preservation instinct.

And please don't tell me about how said instinct doesn't work because of suicides or suicide bombings. The instinct can be suppressed only temporarily long enough to do things like pull a trigger or press a button. But whoever heard of someone who performed suicide by having themselves tortured to death? High amounts of duress at sufficient levels will set the mind off kilter. And if it cannot be stopped by terminating the duress immediately, it will find a means of stopping it by some other means, be it giving false information and believing it to be true.

And since the chance that the person you catch has only a 50/50 chance of knowing what you want, torture becomes invariably unreliable as a means of information acquisition.

You will then be killed with the knife, and buried under the contents of this bucket. At any time, you may stop me and be thoroughly cleaned by telling me the location of the bomb.
I find this intensely humorous. Are the interrogators going to hire a medium in case the terrrorist decides to fess up between getting killed and getting buried?

But it also ignores the fact that if carried on to a certain extent, the subject will most likely tell the torturer whatever they want to hear. In fact, they might believe it themselves.

No, it doesn't ignore that. If the terrorist makes something up to please the interrogator that late in the torture, he will be doing so in desperation, and the interrogator, a professional that is quite knowledgeable with respect to human psychology, will be able to tell.

Furthermore, if the person does not know the exact information wanted, and denies this at first but is tortured for said information, the mind in it's own way of self preservation (strong instinct, hard to suppress under duress), would manufacture an answer that the torturer wants, to the point where the subject believes it.

Furthermore implies you're saying something new. This was just a reworded version of what you just said. If the terrorist subconsciously makes shit up to please his captor when his mind is that affected, it will be obvious to a trained professional.

If your torturer was trained to detect truth or a lie based on the subject's own stress and conviction, they will be most likely fooled when the subject's mind has begun the core self preservation instinct.

Wrong, in this scenario, the interrogator would also be applying his ability to detect admission from desperation this late in the torture.

You just repeat yourself like three more times, so I'll let you reply from here.

In all honesty, I think the simulated torture conversation posted on the last page would go a little more like this:

Interrogator: Where's the bomb located? You have five seconds.
Terrorist: I don't know.
Interrogator: Bullshit. Tell me or I'm going to start peeling off your fingernails one by one.
Terrorist: I am telling you the truth, I truly don't know!
*At this point, the interrogator rips off the fingernail of the terrorist's pinky. The interrogator starts on the next.*
Terrorist: Holy shit, okay, I'll tell you, it's at [Location A]!
Interrogator: Fuck you, I don't believe you.
*Interrogator slides a bucket of an unknown red liquid across the table.*
Interrogator: Do you know what this is?
Terrorist: No...
Interrogator: It's pig's blood. I understand that being contaminated by this will... inhibit... your pursuit of whatever you call Heaven.
Terrorist: *silent*
*At this point, the interrogator pulls out a small knife and dips it in the mixture.*
Interrogator: The remainder of your fingernails will be removed with this knife. You will then be killed with the knife, and buried under the contents of this bucket. At any time, you may stop me and be thoroughly cleaned by telling me the location of the bomb. If you lie, I am going to cut deeper and slower. If you die before you speak, we will hunt down each and every member of your family and find out what they know... just like this.
*The interrogator cuts the next fingernail off. The terrorist, driven by his religion and frightened for the sanctity of his soul, or hoping to protect his family, or not wishing to feel any more pain, interrupts.*
Terrorist: Please, stop, I'm telling you the truth, I swear to Allah! Shit, stop, okay, I'll tell you. It's located at [Location B].
Interrogator: How do I know I can trust you? Maybe you're lying.
Terrorist: Please, I'm not! Stop, please!
*The interrogator cutsthe next fingernail off.*
Terrorist: Oh Allah! Okay, I lied! It's at [Location C]
Interrogator: You lied! You lied to me - how do I know you're not lying now? Huh? Tell me that?
Terrorist: I'm telling the truth!
Interrogator: How do I know?
*The interrogator cuts the next fingernail off.*
Terrorist: Oh Allah! Okay, I was lying! It was really at [Location B]! I'm just scared of you!
Interrogator: How do I know? Maybe you're lying!
Terrorist: Okay! Yes! It's at none of these locations! It's really at [Location D]
*The interrogator cuts the next fingernail off.*
Terrorist: Stop it! Please! It's really at [Location D]! I swear it on the life of my father and the virtue of my mother! I swear it on the name of Mohammed!
Interrogator: How do I know? Maybe you're lying!
Terrorist: I swear!
*The interrogator cuts the next fingernail off.*
Terrorist: Okay! It's at [Location D]! I swear! Just please stop it!
Interrogator: How do I know? Maybe you're lying!
Terrorist: What do I have to say to make you stop?
Interrogator: The truth!
*The interrogator cuts the next fingernail off.*
Terrorist: Ahh! Just stop! It's at [Location D]
Interrogator: Lies!
Terrorist: Okay! There are really... ah... two bombs! One at [Location B] and one at [Location C]!
Interrogator: Really? How do you know?
Terrorist: Just stop it!
Interrogator: You're a terrorist, sworn to destroy my country. How can I trust you?

So on and so forth. So now, we have [A], [B], [C], [D], both [B] and [C] together, and who knows how many other combinations in store. And, ofcourse, the possiblity that our terrorist prisoner wasn't lying when he said that he didn't know anything and just wanted to buy a sheep.

Fun, ain't it?

:)
Thank you for the above.

On top of wich- you are assuming that 'your' threat of pain is greater then their faith/hatred of you/wish to kill people. A well disciplined one would laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh merrily knowing he is doing what he was destined to do.

I do suffer a bit of pain on the way- but its worth it. You're forgeting the mental battle that would go on.

In his mind, the terrorist might be thinking:
*Fuck this guy- 'this' is exactly why i'm glad i planted that bomb. The cause is greater then one single man; Fuck him- and all he stands for (this torture included) - there's my justification*

Now what if this is just some guy that got picked off the street and isn't a terrorist?

No, it doesn't ignore that. If the terrorist makes something up to please the interrogator that late in the torture, he will be doing so in desperation, and the interrogator, a professional that is quite knowledgeable with respect to human psychology, will be able to tell.


To put it simply, how will a professional tell the truth from a lie if the person believes it to be the truth? If a person who resists at that late stage and gives it out of desperation to get something to stop, how do you tell the truth from a lie? Cause if a person believes it to be true at that point of time, even he wouldn't be able to say that he was lying with any conviction.

Professionals are supposed to identify the truth being told to them based on what? Whether the suspect is desperate? Desperate for what? The pain to be stopped? That is a given. But what other factors will there be for the interrogator to tell? What factors can be used to distinguish between pain reinforced belief and pain acquired 'truth'? That is the key argument I am making. The mind can be made to believe things. Believe them to the point where any other contradictory evidence is construed to be a lie. Doing it through pain is one way.

Note: This assumes you have the wrong guy but don't know it.

So on and so forth. So now, we have [A], [B], [C], [D], both [B] and [C] together, and who knows how many other combinations in store. And, ofcourse, the possiblity that our terrorist prisoner wasn't lying when he said that he didn't know anything and just wanted to buy a sheep.

Fun, ain't it?

Like I said already, you're now assuming that the interrogator is psychology-retarded and that the terrorist is immune to pain and threat of damnation, has the balls to lie with a guy that's peeling his nails off with a bloody knife, and can confuse a trained professional. Quite a few too many assumptions, there. I already covered them before you posted this, as well, so it's frustrating that I have to do so again. Good job reading.

Now what if this is just some guy that got picked off the street and isn't a terrorist?

Then he loses a fingernail. Bad luck for him. I'd rather one innocent on the street lose a fingernail than multiple innocents on the street blow up.

Look, the fact of the matter is that professional torture is highly effective. And it isn't conducted remotely like you guys describe. That's what people did to eachother in the darkages, and that WAS highly inefficient.

Common grunts aren't equipped to torture people, but they can serve as part of torture. By the sound of it, that's what the point is/was.

Modern torture methods is all about building stress over long periods, and using drugs to distort people's sense of reality even further.

To put it simply, how will a professional tell the truth from a lie if the person believes it to be the truth?

If the person was told another location and believed it to be the truth, there would be no way to tell, however that would not be faulty intelligence due to torture, that would be fault intelligence due to a misinformed captive.

If the person made up a trauma-induced location that even he believed was true, the interrogator would spot that it was trauma-induced and out of desperation easily. I already replied to this. Stop repeating yourself.

If a person who resists at that late stage and gives it out of desperation to get something to stop, how do you tell the truth from a lie? Cause if a person believes it to be true at that point of time, even he wouldn't be able to say that he was lying with any conviction.

Gee, the same exact argument reworded for the fifth fucking time. Damn, you're good. Well, I guess I'll fucking reply for the fifth time. You wouldn't be able to pick truth from lie, you would be able to pick fact from trauma-induced possible fact, the latter of which you would not follow as accurate.

Professionals are supposed to identify the truth being told to them based on what? Whether the suspect is desperate? Desperate for what? The pain to be stopped? That is a given. But what other factors will there be for the interrogator to tell? What factors can be used to distinguish between pain reinforced belief and pain acquired 'truth'? That is the key argument I am making. The mind can be made to believe things. Believe them to the point where any other contradictory evidence is construed to be a lie. Doing it through pain is one way.

For the last time, they can't, they can just tell that the terrorist's brain is making up shit due to desperation and trauma and assume that the things being said are false, and be done with trying to get information out of him.

Note: This assumes you have the wrong guy but don't know it.

If the person really doesn't know, the torture will stop after the first fingernail, because when he starts to continue with the bloody knife after warning the terrorist to be honest and the terrorist screams out, "I truly don't know, please stop!" the interrogator will stop - or he will stop when the terrorist tries to make up a location because he was telling the truth at step A, which the interrogator may have expected, but not wanted to immediately believe because his captive still possessed the capacity to lie well.

:)
Thank you for the above.

On top of wich- you are assuming that 'your' threat of pain is greater then their faith/hatred of you/wish to kill people. A well disciplined one would laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh merrily knowing he is doing what he was destined to do.

Wrong, Mongooses - plus, what was said above was disputed in my original post without be really having to reply, but he said it anyway because he knew people like you would buy it.

I assume that the threat of pain, the threat of religious damnation in their faith, and the threat of their family's pain and death outweighs their hatred of the interrogator. There's a lot more than just pain to torture and interrogation, Mongoose.

I do suffer a bit of pain on the way- but its worth it. You're forgeting the mental battle that would go on.

In his mind, the terrorist might be thinking:
*Fuck this guy- 'this' is exactly why i'm glad i planted that bomb. The cause is greater then one single man; Fuck him- and all he stands for (this torture included) - there's my justification*

You're ignoring every other factor other than pain, thus your argument is pointless and irrelevant. The terrorist planted the bomb to kill the infidel and get his 70-odd virgins in Muslim heaven. If he gets damned to hell, which he would were he contaminated by and buried in pig's blood, that cause is kind of lost, isn't it? Or, if it's not a religious terrorist and they just like to kill, you're going to have to assume that the terrorist can outwit the interrogator even under that kind of pain. Or that the terrorist won't protect his family by coming forth. Your scenario makes way too many assumptions Mongoose.

I don't know if this article is true. Human Rights Watch are a fairly reputable NGO. I don't agree with all this prisoner abuse. Is it only the American soldiers that have generated reports of such abuse? I know their was mention of some UK soldiers recently. What about the Italiens etc?

Ten years ago this debate about the finer points of torture would never come up in coversation in the U.S.... :(

:rolleyes:

Idiotic

Instead of discussing the immorality of such RANDOM abuse (which it was if you look at the article)... you're discussing the possible results.

And american people wonder why very few people like the USA. Freedom & equality under law for everyone... right :headbang: .

War on terror as imagined by americans is self defeating in theory... unwinnable; repression of rebellions brings even more rebellion. Go around and torture people, see what kind of results you'll get... certaintly not peace and prosperity of the people.

ICC where art thou?

I don't know if this article is true. Human Rights Watch are a fairly reputable NGO. I don't agree with all this prisoner abuse. Is it only the American soldiers that have generated reports of such abuse? I know their was mention of some UK soldiers recently. What about the Italiens etc?
Off the top of my head: England, Denmark & Italy. I doubt anyone's in the clear.

I suspect (but that may be racism on my part) Americans are more intentional in this kind of conduct than the rest of the nations, but there's a common problem that has nothing what so ever to do with torture.

The soldiers see some quite intense displays of brutality & inhuman behaviour. Group psychology 101 says the natural reaction to such things, especially when you're a bunch of westeners who've never experienced anything like it before, is to gradually percieve of everyone outside of the group as subhumans.

The way to enforce this in a group, is to act on it.. Be mean to "them" kick them. And then move on 'till it becomes more & more extreme. It's simply a way for people to stay sane, and remove themselves from a reality they can't cope with. We all do it to some extent, our circumstances are just much less extreme, so our reactions are as well.

It's happened everywhere nice western blokes have been stationed.

It's happened everywhere nice western blokes have been stationed.

Not everywhere; only there where their mother country supports it by inaction. Geneva war convention is plain enough... and there shouldn't be any confusion whether breaking someones arms or legs is allowed in it; and no commanding officer can order such a thing be done... if he does, he should be relieved of his command and prosecuted immediately.

Not everywhere; only there where their mother country supports it by inaction. Geneva war convention is plain enough... and there shouldn't be any confusion whether breaking someones arms or legs is allowed in it; and no commanding officer can order such a thing be done... if he does, he should be relieved of his command and prosecuted immediately.
That's, of course, true. I should have spend a couple of extra words on that post. Sorry.

I meant, the degeneration of morale, and the increasing hostility towards local pobolations, happens everywhere us nice western blokes have been stationed.

Exessive use of force is perfectly normal, for example. It rarely results in broken bones, but beating the crap out of women & children, and degrating people who seek aid, whether they're hungry or hurt, is common amongst people who've been stationed in an otherwise relatively peaceful warzone for a longer period.

Iraq is far more extreme than for example Balkan was it, so it's natural that the abuse is worse. I am quite certain most of it is simply a result of the Us vs. Them mechanism.

To an extent, I'm sure you can see the same thing is a work in this forum. Many of us are wholly alien to eachother, and represent things we are violently opposed to.

I assume that the threat of pain, the threat of religious damnation in their faith, and the threat of their family's pain and death outweighs their hatred of the interrogator.

You assume this based on YOUR mentality, not on theirs.



You're ignoring every other factor other than pain, thus your argument is pointless and irrelevant. The terrorist planted the bomb to kill the infidel and get his 70-odd virgins in Muslim heaven. If he gets damned to hell, which he would were he contaminated by and buried in pig's blood, that cause is kind of lost, isn't it? Or, if it's not a religious terrorist and they just like to kill, you're going to have to assume that the terrorist can outwit the interrogator even under that kind of pain. Or that the terrorist won't protect his family by coming forth. Your scenario makes way too many assumptions Mongoose.

You're ignoring faith. Blind faith cannot be defeated. Pain only adds to the 'Now I KNOW i'm right' and 'The propaganda is TRUE! They ARE heathens who treat people like animals and now they desreve to pay for that'

You're not giving much credit to the suspect.

Did you ever read up on the Algerian War of Independence? The FLN vs the French army? The torture used was sickening... and did it work? Yes... for the FLN, because the people flocked to their cause in response to the treatment.

Can you show me ONE instance where torture conclusively saved people or led to the winning of a war?

If the person made up a trauma-induced location that even he believed was true, the interrogator would spot that it was trauma-induced and out of desperation easily. I already replied to this. Stop repeating yourself.


I will only just ask this then. What are the signs of a trauma induced memory creation? How do you differentiate? Don't repeat the usual, "he's a pro, he would know" argument please. That doesn't tell anything. Or are you saying that merely because the person saying it happens to be in a state of trauma, it is not true? Would that not discount torture as a means of reliable information extraction then? Because torture induces trauma at the middle and late stages does it not?


If the person really doesn't know, the torture will stop after the first fingernail, because when he starts to continue with the bloody knife after warning the terrorist to be honest and the terrorist screams out, "I truly don't know, please stop!" the interrogator will stop - or he will stop when the terrorist tries to make up a location because he was telling the truth at step A, which the interrogator may have expected, but not wanted to immediately believe because his captive still possessed the capacity to lie well.

You do make it sound like a person was a computer program which will behave in a specific manner upon the achievement of certain states. That in itself, is a flawed viewpoint. Thresholds vary from person to person as does the way their minds deal with stress.

And as Psychotic Mongooses has pointed out, torture has historically proven to be invariably unreliable in the use of information extraction.

You're ignoring faith. Blind faith cannot be defeated. Pain only adds to the 'Now I KNOW i'm right' and 'The propaganda is TRUE! They ARE heathens who treat people like animals and now they desreve to pay for that'

No, you're ignoring faith. Blind faith would cause them to yield as soon as they were threatened with damnation. I haven't ignored shit.

You're not giving much credit to the suspect.

You're giving way too fucking much credit to the suspect.

Can you show me ONE instance where torture conclusively saved people or led to the winning of a war?

No, because that's impossible. The gathering of intelligence, yes, that can and has saved lives. Every time an army has gotten a leg-up on a rival army due to gathered intel is proof of this. Torture is simply a means of gathering that intelligence, and the most reliable and consistant way.

No, because that's impossible. The gathering of intelligence, yes, that can and has saved lives. Every time an army has gotten a leg-up on a rival army due to gathered intel is proof of this. Torture is simply a means of gathering that intelligence, and the most reliable and consistant way.

However, as The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials among all other historical events have proven, torture is more often used for extracting a reply from the prisoner regardless of the statement's accuracy. Inflict enough pain on most people and they'll even make up whatever they think you want to hear.

No, you're ignoring faith. Blind faith would cause them to yield as soon as they were threatened with damnation. I haven't ignored shit.


You're giving way too fucking much credit to the suspect.


No, because that's impossible. The gathering of intelligence, yes, that can and has saved lives. Every time an army has gotten a leg-up on a rival army due to gathered intel is proof of this. Torture is simply a means of gathering that intelligence, and the most reliable and consistant way.

Well, unfortunetly for you- history sides with my argument.

I will only just ask this then. What are the signs of a trauma induced memory creation? How do you differentiate? Don't repeat the usual, "he's a pro, he would know" argument please. That doesn't tell anything. Or are you saying that merely because the person saying it happens to be in a state of trauma, it is not true? Would that not discount torture as a means of reliable information extraction then? Because torture induces trauma at the middle and late stages does it not?

Well, ignoring the fact that a pro would know, there are a few basic things that would be immediate tip-offs, such as stuttering or speaking much more quickly than average, or random crying fits, or a million other tells that indicate traumatization.

Depending on the torture, yes, it does induce trauma, and yes, I am saying that information revealed after the suspect is too traumatized to be reliable should not be taken as truth. However, most would not last to the point of traumatization before spilling, so that's somewhat irrelevant. If the first guy were to keep quiet, the second or third guy's odds of breaking would go up tremendously.

You do make it sound like a person was a computer program which will behave in a specific manner upon the achievement of certain states. That in itself, is a flawed viewpoint. Thresholds vary from person to person as does the way their minds deal with stress.

People do behave very predictably, but even if the threshold on one person was too low to gather anything, one of three or four after him is going to behave differently, and one will crack. You don't have to go with the first guy you grab's statement, either. You can do three guys, and if they consistantly come up with the same location or break, then it's probably safe to say that the bomb is there. Torture doesn't have to be a one-on-one pain fest. There are also other methods that can be used during torture, such as drugs, to force a suspect to fess up if they know anything.

And as Psychotic Mongooses has pointed out, torture has historically proven to be invariably unreliable in the use of information extraction.

Psychotic's examples were old and outdated, and ignore the faith of today's subject. History cannot prove something that is highly advanced and much more reliable today. Historically, the wealthiest nations were monarchies and empires. Today, empires fall to more people-friendly governments. The historical success of empires is irrelevant to whether they'd be successful or unsuccessful today.

Did you ever read up on the Algerian War of Independence? The FLN vs the French army? The torture used was sickening... and did it work? Yes... for the FLN, because the people flocked to their cause in response to the treatment.

And their lack of success then is nothing of an indicator as to how torture would perform with our current understanding of human psychology coupled with torture drug technology and other advancements. This point is irrelevant. Something that holds true historically does not necessarily hold true today.

Psychotic's examples were old and outdated, and ignore the faith of today's subject.

Eh, read up on when the Algerian War of Independence and FLN took place.... and then rethink your 'outdated and old' comment... ;)

Well, unfortunetly for you- history sides with my argument.

Well, unfortunately for you, history has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, because the success of torture five hundred, two hundred, or one hundred years ago cannot be used to determine its success today.

Well, unfortunately for you, history has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, because the success of torture five hundred, two hundred, or one hundred years ago cannot be used to determine its success today.

Well it kinda DOES! History is as relevant 500 hundred years ago with the Spanish Inquist. as it is today- or 40 years ago with the FLN.... or 20 years ago with the IRA.... is that too far away still? Or unless you mean nothing before last week....:p

Unless you mean 'coercion' instead of torture...... there's a difference.

Eh, read up on when the Algerian War of Independence and FLN took place.... and then rethink your 'outdated and old' comment... ;)

The Algerian War of Independence was over fifty years ago, was it not? Or maybe I'm thinking of the wrong thing.

Well it kinda DOES! History is as relevant 500 hundred years ago with the Spanish Inquist. as it is today- or 40 years ago with the FLN.... or 20 years ago with the IRA.... is that too far away still? Or unless you mean nothing before last week....:p

Unless you mean 'coercion' instead of torture...... there's a difference.

First of all, the FLN and the Algerian War of Independence are kind of outdated. Second of all, who was conducting the torture for the FLN or the IRA. Grunts in the former and angry higher-ups in the latter? Because that, too, does not indicate the effectiveness of a modern professional.

And torture is a means of coercion, so I'm not sure what you're talking about in the last sentence.

However, as The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials among all other historical events have proven, torture is more often used for extracting a reply from the prisoner regardless of the statement's accuracy. Inflict enough pain on most people and they'll even make up whatever they think you want to hear.

You haven't been reading, have you? I'm not talking about using torture like that, and that's not the point I'm debating, so who the fuck are you arguing with? I'm talking about torture conducted well by a professional with the sole purpose of gathering accurate intel, not bullshit torture used to force people to admit to stuff they didn't do.

Second of all, who was conducting the torture for the FLN or the IRA. Grunts in the former and angry higher-ups in the latter? Because that, too, does not indicate the effectiveness of a modern professional.

And torture is a means of coercion, so I'm not sure what you're talking about in the last sentence.

No.

The torture committed ON the FLN by the French military and the torture committed ON the IRA by the British military.

Coercion would be more in line with..... G'amo Bay... loud music.... disorientation... psychological effects....

Torture implies.. more physical aspects... beatings, standing for hours on end naked facing a cold wall, electrodes attached to genitals, hung upside down by the feet, etc etc.

You haven't been reading, have you? I'm not talking about using torture like that, and that's not the point I'm debating, so who the fuck are you arguing with? I'm talking about torture conducted well by a professional with the sole purpose of gathering accurate intel, not bullshit torture used to force people to admit to stuff they didn't do.

Really now? Is there a difference between amateur torture and professional torture? The very definition of torture is inflicting physical or psychological pain and injuries in order to gain a desired information or confession. If the subject is not damaged physically or mentally, then it's not torture.

I'm arguing with someone who wants to bend definitions to suit his or her viewpoints.

You haven't been reading, have you? I'm not talking about using torture like that, and that's not the point I'm debating, so who the fuck are you arguing with? I'm talking about torture conducted well by a professional with the sole purpose of gathering accurate intel, not bullshit torture used to force people to admit to stuff they didn't do.

Let's make this absolutely clear. Putting aside the question of it's efficacy for the moment, are you advocating torture as a legitimate method?

If, by your estimation torture is legitimate, how many times or how broadly does it need to be employed in order for it to become illegitimate?

Does America, by virtue of past or current deeds, legitimately operate under a looser set of standards than we demand of the rest of the world?

If we give our government that power and legitimacy, what procedures or laws must be set in place in order for that power to not be abused now or in the future other than by the forbidding of said power and legitimacy?

Ah, as I thought. Silence.

Well, ignoring the fact that a pro would know, there are a few basic things that would be immediate tip-offs, such as stuttering or speaking much more quickly than average, or random crying fits, or a million other tells that indicate traumatization.

Pro, pro, pro. You keep chanting that like a mantra. Really now, you've got to stop using that term like it's the answer to everything. A professional interogator is human, not some kind of omniscient being who can tell the answers merely by being a pro. It takes a bit more than that.

As for stuttering or speaking quicker than average, sufficient pain will cause that, even if you are not traumatized. Particularly when the person is still in a state of suffering.


If the first guy were to keep quiet, the second or third guy's odds of breaking would go up tremendously.

This only assumes that the persons not being tortured at the point of time are watching, and as such, their "information", is likely to be tainted.


People do behave very predictably, but even if the threshold on one person was too low to gather anything, one of three or four after him is going to behave differently, and one will crack. You don't have to go with the first guy you grab's statement, either. You can do three guys, and if they consistantly come up with the same location or break, then it's probably safe to say that the bomb is there.

This assumes that all three subjects have the knowledge of the same bomb. A very, very poor assumption.


Psychotic's examples were old and outdated, and ignore the faith of today's subject. History cannot prove something that is highly advanced and much more reliable today. Historically, the wealthiest nations were monarchies and empires. Today, empires fall to more people-friendly governments. The historical success of empires is irrelevant to whether they'd be successful or unsuccessful today.

The methods of governance evolved, but not the basic concepts. Governance, is power held by the elite few, over the masses. And that, no matter where you look, has not changed. A new skin, a new dress, but the person within is still the same.

Humanity, is still the same as it was then as it is now. We only disguise our shortcomings better.

Let's make this absolutely clear. Putting aside the question of it's efficacy for the moment, are you advocating torture as a legitimate method?

It depends on the scenario, but yes.

If, by your estimation torture is legitimate, how many times or how broadly does it need to be employed in order for it to become illegitimate?

If civilians or allied soldiers are under some immediate threat of attack, the existence of which is known but the details of which are not, torture should be an option as a means of extracting necessary information quickly and efficiently.

Does America, by virtue of past or current deeds, legitimately operate under a looser set of standards than we demand of the rest of the world?

No, the standards that I would hope would be required if torture were to be implemented are very high, and if other countries complied with these standards I would have no problem with countries other than the United States using torture as a means of coercion.

If we give our government that power and legitimacy, what procedures or laws must be set in place in order for that power to not be abused now or in the future other than by the forbidding of said power and legitimacy?

Are you suggesting that by allowing a certain practice you must be allowing it regardless of circumstance and that regulations and standards cannot be applied to said practice? There are other methods of controlling an operation than prohibition.

Ah, as I thought. Silence.

I haven't been able to get online until late at night recently, and not for long. Too much shit going on. Acting obnoxious and condescending doesn't suit you Gymoor. You know I'll reply out admit you have a point if I believe you do have a point.

As for stuttering or speaking quicker than average, sufficient pain will cause that, even if you are not traumatized. Particularly when the person is still in a state of suffering.

Not in the same way that one does when traumatized or in a state of shock.

This only assumes that the persons not being tortured at the point of time are watching, and as such, their "information", is likely to be tainted.

It doesn't assume that at all. Who said that the next people in the lineup would be watching - or allowed to watch, for that matter? Don't make shit up because you can't reply.

This assumes that all three subjects have the knowledge of the same bomb. A very, very poor assumption.

No, this also assumes no such thing. It assumes that multiple suspects will either know of the same bomb, or not know. Thus, if you get three bomb locations and a freak-out, you probably don't want to use that intel. Nothing is perfect.

The methods of governance evolved, but not the basic concepts. Governance, is power held by the elite few, over the masses. And that, no matter where you look, has not changed. A new skin, a new dress, but the person within is still the same.

Humanity, is still the same as it was then as it is now. We only disguise our shortcomings better.

I'm not exactly arguing for the "basic concepts" regarding torture, am I? I'm not saying that torture should be allowed regardless of the way it is conducted or who it is conducted by or on, am I? I am arguing for very specific methods of torture used on specific people conducted by specific people, and, as you just admitted yourself, "The methods of governance evolved."

...I just can't believe that in this day and age, we have someone advocating the use of torture. Let's get this straight--TORTURE IS WRONG. It might, under certain circumstances, be effective (although it's effectiveness doubtful, at best). THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. In fact, it is forbidden by the constitution--"Cruel and unusual punishment", remember? Torture is one of the most brutal of humanities inventions and should never be used.

...I just can't believe that in this day and age, we have someone advocating the use of torture. Let's get this straight--TORTURE IS WRONG. It might, under certain circumstances, be effective (although it's effectiveness doubtful, at best). THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. In fact, it is forbidden by the constitution--"Cruel and unusual punishment", remember? Torture is one of the most brutal of humanities inventions and should never be used.

I'm not advocating torture as punishment, so the Constitution does nothing to prevent it, but nice try. When talking to someone that doesn't adamantly disapprove of torture, it's best to leave your morals at the door, because odds are that the person you're talking to doesn't share your sentiments.

Torture is one of the most brutal of humanities inventions and should never be used.
Plus, last time I checked, just after the Al Quaeda link and the ever present WMDs, torture against civilians was one of the reasons the US actually went into Iraq.

As for the effectiveness debate, it's ignorant to assume that any type of turture is, in general effective. Two reasons:
1. A person who is willing to blow himself up will certainly withstand torture. Catchy phrases like "threat of damnation" only shows how some individuals still believe that Islamic fundamentalists are simple minded retards who will admit to anything before being force fed a slice of bacon. FYI, they are NOT!
2. Since not all interogators will be PhD holders and not all victims will be guilty, the effect of state sponsored terrorism will only strengthen "the cause" of the poor bastards at the receiving end of torture. One prisoner may crack and reveal valuable info, but countless others will either become martyrs, or will be innocent and die, or be released and talk about their experiences. In all cases this will allure more and more people to join "The Cause".

My ending statement is this: In order for the US to have ANY hope of winning the war against terrrorism they HAVE to hold the higher (moral) ground at all times and at all costs.
Currently they are not. But then again, they are not winning, either...

Just a couple of questions. How does someone become a professional torturer? Do you have to torture a hundred people before you go pro? So if its your first time torturing you just tortured someone for nothing. Yes there are pro interegators but all information becomes unreliable once pain is thrown into the equation.

As for the effectiveness debate, it's ignorant to assume that any type of turture is, in general effective. Two reasons:

Ignorant? Kind of like spelling torture, turture?

1. A person who is willing to blow himself up will certainly withstand torture. Catchy phrases like "threat of damnation" only shows how some individuals still believe that Islamic fundamentalists are simple minded retards who will admit to anything before being force fed a slice of bacon. FYI, they are NOT!

The ones that blow themselves up are simple minded fundamentalist retards, as you so succinctly put it (to quote Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back). The reason they blow themselves up is to martyr themselves while killing the infidel and ensure their admission to paradise. That is their cause, which is why being contaminated by pig's blood would be a very effective way of convincing them to give up.

Also, to assume that anyone willing to blow himself up can handle torture is "ignorant," as you say. Being blown up is nearly instantaneous, and results in little pain, whereas torture is slow and done over a specified period of time. You cannot accurately compare blowing oneself up to torture, because the concept of torture implies that one can make it stop if the pain becomes too great for them to handle. If a suicide bomber were in some sort of slowed state of time and could feel himself ripping apart every few seconds, and had a magic button that stopped the explosion from going further, and was enlightened to the fact that he would not be accepted into paradise for this deed, and learned mid-explosion that his family would suffer the same fate as a result of what he was doing, there is a good fucking chance that the terrorist would not go through with it.

2. Since not all interogators will be PhD holders and not all victims will be guilty, the effect of state sponsored terrorism will only strengthen "the cause" of the poor bastards at the receiving end of torture. One prisoner may crack and reveal valuable info, but countless others will either become martyrs, or will be innocent and die, or be released and talk about their experiences. In all cases this will allure more and more people to join "The Cause".

For one, I am not advocating the use of torture by people that do not fully understand it, so this part of your post is completely pointless. Second, if a prisoner is innocent, the professional would be able to tell, either when the prisoner kept up his story after being warned that he should be honest, or after the terrorist cracked to the point that information gathered from them would no longer be reliable. Third, if this would cause people to join the cause, then why did burying terrorists in pigs' entrails work so well in the Philippines?

My ending statement is this: In order for the US to have ANY hope of winning the war against terrrorism they HAVE to hold the higher (moral) ground at all times and at all costs.

I disagree. Drastic times call for drastic measures. We cannot beat them by acting like their moral superiors, as they understand that this is currently how we feel and that is an attribute that has no bearing on their willingness to fight. However damnation under their religion, the thing that drives them, would affect their willingness to fight, not to mention their willingness to withstand torture.

Currently they are not. But then again, they are not winning, either...

:rolleyes: How many other major American wars have gone this well in terms of lives lost up until end of official wartime? War sucks. People die. Why would anyone expect Iraq to be different?

Just a couple of questions. How does someone become a professional torturer? Do you have to torture a hundred people before you go pro? So if its your first time torturing you just tortured someone for nothing. Yes there are pro interegators but all information becomes unreliable once pain is thrown into the equation.

A professional in the art of torturing would simply be an interrogator that knows his drugs, happens to be a psychiatrist, and hurts people if they don't talk fast enough. And no, information does not become unreliable once pain is thrown into the equation. It depends how much pain is applied, how quickly, and how strong the suspect is.

It depends on the scenario, but yes.

Okay, so it depends on who does it and how.



If civilians or allied soldiers are under some immediate threat of attack, the existence of which is known but the details of which are not, torture should be an option as a means of extracting necessary information quickly and efficiently.

Okay, so the governement and civilians are allowed to dole out horrific treatment without a trial then. Sounds great to me. Some innocent people may be rounded up, but as long as we're safe, eh?


No, the standards that I would hope would be required if torture were to be implemented are very high, and if other countries complied with these standards I would have no problem with countries other than the United States using torture as a means of coercion.

And yet these high standards don't entail due process. So basically you're saying that if a citizen of America were apprenhend abroad and was torured, you'd be fine with that. Even though there was no trial, even though we were not consulted.

Are you suggesting that by allowing a certain practice you must be allowing it regardless of circumstance and that regulations and standards cannot be applied to said practice? There are other methods of controlling an operation than prohibition.

I'm saying that the nature of leaders is to use a power when they are handed it. Ethics rules are ignored or broken regularly, by both parties. You give them an inch, they try to take a mile. Inevitably. That's why the Constitution was crafted as it was...to insure that whim and recklessness are reduced as much as possible. Sure it would be easier to control the populace if you squelch free expression. Sure, it would be easier to maintain security if you give the police complete access into everyone's life. Sure, certain things can be discovered if you not only utilize torture but refine it to it's greatest effectiveness. Call it a slippery slope if you'd like, but both you and I know that's how people operate. Businesses pollute as much as they possibly can without breaking the law. The greatest and most devastating weapon invented has been used.

But to your point of regulation, how do we do that? How many people does it require to be in danger before torture is justified? How immediate the threat? Is it a call that can be made in the field? Do higher ups get consulted? Is it a military or a civilian call? Does it apply to American citizens as well? Who is liable if wrongful torure occurs?

Sounds great, where do I sign up? :rolleyes:

I haven't been able to get online until late at night recently, and not for long. Too much shit going on. Acting obnoxious and condescending doesn't suit you Gymoor. You know I'll reply out admit you have a point if I believe you do have a point.

I wasn't singling you out, necessarily. I just find that it's rare that such direct questions get answered. As far as obnoxiousness goes, I can't believe that a reasonable person actually condones torture, regardless of it's effectiveness. As for it's effectiveness, psychology class clearley indicated to me that it isn't. Tortured individuals, when pressed far enough, are unable to distinguish reality. The amount of pressure needed to "break" them breaks everything. The skill of the practitioner doesn't come into it. The defense mechanisms and retreat of the tortured individual does.

Women convicted as witches went to their deaths believing they were witches...

Torture has no place in civilized society, and I will rise up in armed rebellion to fight such a thing being legitimate...ironically probably forcing myself to make a judgement call towards brutality myself...but I still wouldn't support a government's legitimate power to do so. I'd rather die.

How many other major American wars have gone this well in terms of lives lost up until end of official wartime?
Please define "official wartime". The last official war declared by Congress (as required) was after the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbour. US soldiers still die in Iraq. Iraqis still die in Iraq. Dead people and their families couldn't care less about GW proclaiming that the war has ended.

As for your other "reasoning": I still believe that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If people, real people, decide that they can end their lives by blowing themselves up their psychology and mind set are nothing close to logical. As a result, assumptions about their endurance to physical or mental pain are useless. As for the pig's blood... What can I say... You are right. All Islamic fundamentalists will betray their cause, their country, their beliefs and their families when comfronted with a slice of bacon or an unclean knife. Especially if it is held by a professional. :rolleyes:

"Turture" was a very low blow. Especially since it was a typo. Even if it wasn't, you probably understand that English is not my native language. If spelling mistakes are now a valid counterargument then you're most likely running short of things to say, aren't you? What's next? A digital fist fight?

PS> The Geneva Convention and numerous UN resolutions have very specific articles about the use of ANY type of physical AND mental torture. But, HEY, I forgot... The Geneva convention doesn't apply to "combatants" :(

Not in the same way that one does when traumatized or in a state of shock.

Really? And how do you know this? What signs do you look for to differentiate. If you say that it is not the same way, obviously you know what factors to look for. So then, tell us.


It doesn't assume that at all. Who said that the next people in the lineup would be watching - or allowed to watch, for that matter? Don't make shit up because you can't reply.

Then why on earth did you say that the odds of the 2nd and 3rd person breaking go up significantly? If they were kept seperate and completely cut off, how would they have a better chance of breaking under torture?


No, this also assumes no such thing. It assumes that multiple suspects will either know of the same bomb, or not know. Thus, if you get three bomb locations and a freak-out, you probably don't want to use that intel. Nothing is perfect.

That means you only have a 1 in 9 chance (assume 3 suspects) of having all the suspects know of the same bomb or not at all. The odds are highly stacked against the interrogator of ever getting the right batch of suspects.


I'm not exactly arguing for the "basic concepts" regarding torture, am I? I'm not saying that torture should be allowed regardless of the way it is conducted or who it is conducted by or on, am I? I am arguing for very specific methods of torture used on specific people conducted by specific people, and, as you just admitted yourself, "The methods of governance evolved."

You argue that information extraction via pain inducing methods works. I'd like to say that it doesn't, because it is unreliable when put together in real world situations.

A professional in the art of torturing would simply be an interrogator that knows his drugs, happens to be a psychiatrist, and hurts people if they don't talk fast enough. And no, information does not become unreliable once pain is thrown into the equation. It depends how much pain is applied, how quickly, and how strong the suspect is.

Okay, so you are an expert in torture and psychology yourself? If you have sources for this, I'd sure like to see them. Perhaps a study by the esteemed Dr. Mengele?

Oops, I just Godwinned.

Okay, so it depends on who does it and how.

I have a feeling you're going to turn this against me, but yes.

Okay, so the governement and civilians are allowed to dole out horrific treatment without a trial then. Sounds great to me. Some innocent people may be rounded up, but as long as we're safe, eh?

I'm not talking about picking people off the street and torturing them for intel, Gymoor, and you fucking know it. Mainly, I would hope that his were an option for superiors, only, as they would be the most likely people to know, unless no such people exist or are left alive, and then, once again, it depends on the scenario.

And yet these high standards don't entail due process. So basically you're saying that if a citizen of America were apprenhend abroad and was torured, you'd be fine with that. Even though there was no trial, even though we were not consulted.

Not unless they had reason to believe that the American was involved, e.g. the American was just shooting at them half an hour ago, which is the type of scenario I'm suggesting.

I'm saying that the nature of leaders is to use a power when they are handed it. Ethics rules are ignored or broken regularly, by both parties. You give them an inch, they try to take a mile. Inevitably. That's why the Constitution was crafted as it was...to insure that whim and recklessness are reduced as much as possible. Sure it would be easier to control the populace if you squelch free expression. Sure, it would be easier to maintain security if you give the police complete access into everyone's life. Sure, certain things can be discovered if you not only utilize torture but refine it to it's greatest effectiveness. Call it a slippery slope if you'd like, but both you and I know that's how people operate. Businesses pollute as much as they possibly can without breaking the law. The greatest and most devastating weapon invented has been used.

But businesses - the ones that last, at least - don't break the law. They may push the envelope, but they stay within the limits of the law. And those that don't are punished, as they should be, as should any interrogators that would attempt the same.

But to your point of regulation, how do we do that? How many people does it require to be in danger before torture is justified? How immediate the threat? Is it a call that can be made in the field? Do higher ups get consulted? Is it a military or a civilian call? Does it apply to American citizens as well? Who is liable if wrongful torure occurs?

Do you want me to draft you a fuckin' bill of torture legislation, here? Okay...


"How...justified?" I'll say five, just for kicks.

"How...threat?" It's expected within the next 48 hours.

"Is...field?" Yes, via consulting a handbook that describes the requirements that must be met for torture to be applied.

"Do...consulted?" When necessary, yes.

"Is...call?" It is the call of those in charge of detaining and interrogating the person or persons that torture is being considered for.

"Does...well?" Of course, if there is strong enough reason to merit torture of the individual.

"Who...occurs?" The person that made the call and any superiors that were consulted.


I wasn't singling you out, necessarily. I just find that it's rare that such direct questions get answered.

I guess I'm a rare guy.

As far as obnoxiousness goes, I can't believe that a reasonable person actually condones torture, regardless of it's effectiveness. As for it's effectiveness, psychology class clearley indicated to me that it isn't. Tortured individuals, when pressed far enough, are unable to distinguish reality. The amount of pressure needed to "break" them breaks everything. The skill of the practitioner doesn't come into it. The defense mechanisms and retreat of the tortured individual does.

I, too, have taken a couple psych classes, and still believe that torture is quite feasible if conducted properly and monitored tightly. As for the reasonable person thing, I've found that people who generally do not recognize the potential usefullness of torture are not reasonable people (though there are a few) but morally upright people. As I'm sure you can tell, I'm a bit lacking in respect for morals.

Women convicted as witches went to their deaths believing they were witches...

:rolleyes:

Torture has no place in civilized society, and I will rise up in armed rebellion to fight such a thing being legitimate...ironically probably forcing myself to make a judgement call towards brutality myself...but I still wouldn't support a government's legitimate power to do so. I'd rather die.

Jeez, you're really not a fan of torture, are you? If your morals prevent you from respecting it that much, I doubt I'll have any luck convincing you.
Personally, I believe that committing a lesser evil can result in a greater good. If two or three guys lose a combined eight nails and seventeen children in a school live, I'm happy.

Please define "official wartime". The last official war declared by Congress (as required) was after the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbour. US soldiers still die in Iraq. Iraqis still die in Iraq. Dead people and their families couldn't care less about GW proclaiming that the war has ended.

That's official wartime. Congratulations, you nailed it.

As for your other "reasoning": I still believe that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If people, real people, decide that they can end their lives by blowing themselves up their psychology and mind set are nothing close to logical. As a result, assumptions about their endurance to physical or mental pain are useless. As for the pig's blood... What can I say... You are right. All Islamic fundamentalists will betray their cause, their country, their beliefs and their families when comfronted with a slice of bacon or an unclean knife. Especially if it is held by a professional. :rolleyes:

I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, and yet you could even reply to anything I wrote? Congratulations on making no sense. And for the record, I'm not the one claiming that the terrorist would betray his faith and his family - you are. A terrorist would be betraying faith and family by being contaminated by pig entrails and accepting a punishment while under the impression that his family would later receive the same.

"Turture" was a very low blow. Especially since it was a typo. Even if it wasn't, you probably understand that English is not my native language. If spelling mistakes are now a valid counterargument then you're most likely running short of things to say, aren't you? What's next? A digital fist fight?

So was insulting my intelligence - twice.

Okay, so you are an expert in torture and psychology yourself? If you have sources for this, I'd sure like to see them.

No, I'm not an expert. I know some shit, but I am by no means an expert. Are you? Because you're arguing this topic as well. If you aren't an expert, you have no more business arguing against this topic than I have arguing for it, by your logic. In fact, by your logic, no one that is not an expert can form an opinion on a subject by himself or herself at all, but must rather accept the opinions of others and simply cite what the experts say, because experts are right and those that are not experts are wrong.

Citing experts is a waste of time, Gymoor, because for every expert that goes one way on a subject, one goes the exact other way. So arguing by simply posting other people's opinions and not arguing your own points in your own way is worthless.

Perhaps a study by the esteemed Dr. Mengele?

Oops, I just Godwinned.

:D For shame, Gymoor, for shame.

No, I'm not an expert. I know some shit, but I am by no means an expert. Are you? Because you're arguing this topic as well. If you aren't an expert, you have no more business arguing against this topic than I have arguing for it, by your logic. In fact, by your logic, no one that is not an expert can form an opinion on a subject by himself or herself at all, but must rather accept the opinions of others and simply cite what the experts say, because experts are right and those that are not experts are wrong.

Citing experts is a waste of time, Gymoor, because for every expert that goes one way on a subject, one goes the exact other way. So arguing by simply posting other people's opinions and not arguing your own points in your own way is worthless.



:D For shame, Gymoor, for shame.

I just think that in this case, the burden of proof is necessary for torture to be legitimate. Lacking that burden of proof, shouldn't we err on the NO Torture side?

As for you contention about experts, I have seen articles saying torture doesn't work. I've never seen the reverse. Perhaps you'd help me to repair my ignorance?

Really? And how do you know this? What signs do you look for to differentiate. If you say that it is not the same way, obviously you know what factors to look for. So then, tell us.

Off the top of my head, if someone's breathing is shaky and they tangle a couple words, they're probably still with you. If they can't get two words out without needing a deep breath, they are probably too far gone to gather accurate information from them.

Then why on earth did you say that the odds of the 2nd and 3rd person breaking go up significantly? If they were kept seperate and completely cut off, how would they have a better chance of breaking under torture?

Because under the assumption that at least one in three will break and know the correct location, if the first one breaks then one of the remaining two should be the one to break, so the odds increase until one finally does.

That means you only have a 1 in 9 chance (assume 3 suspects) of having all the suspects know of the same bomb or not at all. The odds are highly stacked against the interrogator of ever getting the right batch of suspects.

Of all three knowing, yes, of a working combination as described previously, no. There are three ways each terrorist can come out - they either answer correctly, A, or not answer correctly due to breaking or not knowing, B, or answering incorrectly, C. That makes 27 combinations, out of which any triplet that does not possess the letter "C" will be reliable. There are 8 combinations that do not possess the letter C, so just under 33% of the options will result a working combination, and that's assuming the worst scenario (that it requires three to get a good run).

You argue that information extraction via pain inducing methods works. I'd like to say that it doesn't, because it is unreliable when put together in real world situations.

More than just pain is implemented in the torture I have suggested, so no, that's not what I'm arguing exactly. And I'm also not implying that it works regardless of scenario, subject, or conduct as you seem to imply that I do. Any historical examples given have either been outdated or not held to the standards that I would have torture held to, and I'm not advocating torture in the way that it hasn't worked, thus those examples are irrelevant and so far my hypothetical real-world situations seem to be holding up alright.

Then he loses a fingernail. Bad luck for him. I'd rather one innocent on the street lose a fingernail than multiple innocents on the street blow up.Bad luck? This is not an act of God we're talking about here. This is a crime of violence that you think is justified because it might possibly save someone. But why don't think a little bit deeper? What do you think having your fingernail cut off by foreign invaders when you've done nothing wrong would do for your opinion of said invaders?

Because under the assumption that at least one in three will break and know the correct location, if the first one breaks then one of the remaining two should be the one to break, so the odds increase until one finally does.

You're using the law of averages as a means of determining whether you'll get the right combination or not?? That really stinks as a method of determining if you can get the correct informtion.


Of all three knowing, yes, of a working combination as described previously, no. There are three ways each terrorist can come out - they either answer correctly, A, or not answer correctly due to breaking or not knowing, B, or answering incorrectly, C. That makes 27 combinations, out of which any triplet that does not possess the letter "C" will be reliable. There are 8 combinations that do not possess the letter C, so just under 33% of the options will result a working combination, and that's assuming the worst scenario (that it requires three to get a good run).

Given the number of people currently being held on grounds of SUSPECTED terrorist activity, you have an odd that would make even the most careless gambler think twice. So how is this going to make your torture anymore reliable? It would be like this:

"Ok, we've tortured and maimed 5000 people. Out of that 5000, one of them told us the information we need. But since we had to go through 5000, the information is now outdated"

As for you contention about experts, I have seen articles saying torture doesn't work. I've never seen the reverse. Perhaps you'd help me to repair my ignorance?

Here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2106702/) is an article suggesting that torture can work for certain lines of questioning and in fact has. Sorry I took so long to reply, I couldn't get on last night, too much shit to do. It's not an expert testimony, but it does cite enough facts to make it credible. If it is not good enough for you, let me know, and I can try to use the campus internet to access CQ Researcher or Opposing Viewpoints or something - I'm not a subscriber, so I can't get on there, and I'm tired and lazy, so I'm not going to spend hours looking for expert testimonies online.

"Ok, we've tortured and maimed 5000 people. Out of that 5000, one of them told us the information we need. But since we had to go through 5000, the information is now outdated"

Except that you would not need to go through 1/1000 of that to get the information you needed, and, if you did, I think it would be safe to assume that the information you're seeking is not something that can be attained via torture. Again, nothing is perfect.

Here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2106702/) is an article suggesting that torture can work for certain lines of questioning and in fact has. Sorry I took so long to reply, I couldn't get on last night, too much shit to do. It's not an expert testimony, but it does cite enough facts to make it credible. If it is not good enough for you, let me know, and I can try to use the campus internet to access CQ Researcher or Opposing Viewpoints or something - I'm not a subscriber, so I can't get on there, and I'm tired and lazy, so I'm not going to spend hours looking for expert testimonies online.

I do appreciate the effort.
Cambone says, I've got to crack this thing and I'm tired of working through the normal chain of command. I've got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I'm going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it's working. We're getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We're getting good stuff.

First of all, I see no evidence of a "picture of the insurgency" happening. Also, this is one guy talking about his pet project...of course he's gonna claim it's working.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

"if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

So, while torture may work, sometimes, depending on the torturer and the tortured, there are better ways that don't break international law. So why do it?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605A.shtml

From the viewpoint of those who would use it, the inescapable problem with torture is its lack of efficiency. Interrogators never know whether their victims are telling the truth or making up stories just to end the pain. Investigators then waste valuable time chasing down false leads. In the absence of rock-hard supporting evidence, intelligence analysts never know how much faith to put in some tidbit of coerced information. And governments often end up ignoring the scrap of truth they should heed.

It just seems that the cost of torture (justified hatred, torturing individuals who have had no due process and so therefore may be innocent, confusion, misinformation and the utter hypocrisy of using it when we're trying spread "freedom,") isn't worth the benefit, (maybe uncovering a plot if you have the right torturers in the right circumstances and you are able to corroborate the information somehow.)

Checkmate.

Thank you for researching that- its very informative.

Checkmate.

Thank you for researching that- its very informative.

Thanks, but it was as easy as typing "torture works" and "torture doesn't work" into google and scanning through both search results. Granted, I didn't wade through too many pages of results, but I still didn't find anything that said outright that torture works. I could have missed something though.

First of all, I see no evidence of a "picture of the insurgency" happening. Also, this is one guy talking about his pet project...of course he's gonna claim it's working.

Obviously, but everyone, no matter how hard they try, is subconsciously affected by their predeterminations on a subject when taking a stance on it, unless they are 100% ignorant on everything regarding the subject to begin with, so the same could be said of any article.

So, while torture may work, sometimes, depending on the torturer and the tortured, there are better ways that don't break international law. So why do it?

Two things: it also depends, and to a greater extent, on the type of information being sought; and there are other ways that don't break international law, not necessarily better ways. Besides, I would not suggest breaking international law - I would suggest changing it.


It just seems that the cost of torture (justified hatred, torturing individuals who have had no due process and so therefore may be innocent, confusion, misinformation and the utter hypocrisy of using it when we're trying spread "freedom,") isn't worth the benefit, (maybe uncovering a plot if you have the right torturers in the right circumstances and you are able to corroborate the information somehow.)

I disagree with the entire line of reasoning here. I would say that the cost of torture (further justification of hatred that is already considered justified, anyway; torturing individuals who may not know what you are hoping they know, though admittedly they were just shooting at you, so they are still guilty of something; detectable confusion; detectable misinformation; and hypocrisy - this can stay) is worth the benefit, (maybe uncovering a plot that saves many innocent lives).

Checkmate.

Moron.

Check, more like, as is any step of a debate except the final one that cannot be disputed.

Unbelievable....

Actually the French proved in Algeria that torture and murder will work to defeat terrorist . Are you willing to put the battery cables on someones balls and then when you are done getting the info you need take them out and shoot them ? The French were willing in Algeria but they won the battle and lost the war. They beat the terrorist by destroying their networks and organization but lost the battle of public opinion . Politics won over the other method .

Actually the French proved in Algeria that torture and murder will work to defeat terrorist . Are you willing to put the battery cables on someones balls and then when you are done getting the info you need take them out and shoot them ? The French were willing in Algeria but they won the battle and lost the war. They beat the terrorist by destroying their networks and organization but lost the battle of public opinion . Politics won over the other method .

So actually then in the long run (which IS history) the FLN won..... by garnering public support because of the over repressive measures used by the French military against the FLN....

Doesn't really sound like torture worked for the French in the end now does it? Or the British, or the Spanish etc etc

So actually then in the long run (which IS history) the FLN won..... by garnering public support because of the over repressive measures used by the French military against the FLN....

Doesn't really sound like torture worked for the French in the end now does it? Or the British, or the Spanish etc etc
Thats not the question is it . If the question is " Does torture work to get info , to use to destroy a terrorist organization " , the answer is yes . The politics involved the French people NOT knowing that the method was being used and finding out after the fact . If your population ..."the people "... would approve of the method knowing that it has worked in the past then pressure from public opinion would no longer be a factor regurding torture would it . You would defeat the terrorist keep your political goal .
The cost is a moral one . Would I sanction this to win ? And if I win is it worth this ?

I think not in this war . If I was protecting my country from a WMD , thats different I would volunteer to pull the balls off with plyers and shoot the bastards myself. I would imagine some still would not think it was worth it . And I would understand .

Thats not the question is it . If the question is " Does torture work to get info , to use to destroy a terrorist organization " , the answer is yes . The politics involved the French people NOT knowing that the method was being used and finding out after the fact . If your population ..."the people "... would approve of the method knowing that it has worked in the past then pressure from public opinion would no longer be a factor regurding torture would it . You would defeat the terrorist keep your political goal .
The cost is a moral one . Would I sanction this to win ? And if I win is it worth this ?

I think not in this war . If I was protecting my country from a WMD , thats different I would volunteer to pull the balls off with plyers and shoot the bastards myself. I would imagine some still would not think it was worth it . And I would understand .

That's not what the information and the various studies suggest though. The BEST you can say about the efficacy or torture is that under some circumstances with some subjects you might be able to confirm something you already know.

That's not what the information and the various studies suggest though. The BEST you can say about the efficacy or torture is that under some circumstances with some subjects you might be able to confirm something you already know.

Why do you need studys , when you have actual historical FACT ? They did it , it worked , they destroyed a terrorist organization . And we know exactly why it failed . Thats like saying" I have studies that say the sky is green " and refusing to look out the window and believe what you see. Never mind what you can learn from KGB files that keep turning up that also confirm it works and has always worked under certain conditions and for certain results.

Governments are understandably hesitant to admit they even use it , never mind giving out " proof" in the form of statistics .

Why do you need studys , when you have actual historical FACT ? They did it , it worked , they destroyed a terrorist organization . And we know exactly why it failed . Thats like saying" I have studies that say the sky is green " and refusing to look out the window and believe what you see. Never mind what you can learn from KGB files that keep turning up that also confirm it works and has always worked under certain conditions and for certain results.

Governments are understandably hesitant to admit they even use it , never mind giving out " proof" in the form of statistics .

Was it the torture alone that destroyed the terrorist organization and/or gained the necessary intelligence? How were they able to confirm the information that they got via torture? You are acting as if you had complete knowledge of the nature of the intelligence gleaned in that way, and all the other details. You're taking it on faith that since torture occured and since the terrorist organization was defeated (short term,) then the torture was what turned the tide.

Of all things to put one's faith in to, the efficacy of torture would seem to be the least worthy.

Bump, because my last round of questions went unanswered/unconsidered.

I cant link this so its going to have to posted .

Does torture work?
The French military's use of torture in Algeria is often cited as a success story. But the real story is more complex. Second of two parts.

Darius Rejali — Salon.com


Monday June 21, 2004

Torture apologists point to one powerful example to counter all the arguments against torture: the Battle of Algiers. In 1956, the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) began a terrorist bombing campaign in Algiers, the capital of Algeria, killing many innocent civilians. In 1957, Gen. Jacques Massu and the French government began a counterinsurgency campaign in Algiers using torture. As English military theorist Brian Crozier put it, "By such ruthless methods, Massu smashed the FLN organization in Algiers and re-established unchallenged French authority. And he did the job in seven months -- from March to mid-October."

It is hard to argue with success. Here were professional torturers who produced consistently reliable information in a short time. It was a breathtaking military victory against terrorism by a democracy that used torture. Yet the French won by applying overwhelming force in an extremely constrained space, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture. As noted war historian John Keegan said in his recent study of military intelligence ("Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy From Napoleon to Al-Qaeda"), "it is force, not fraud or forethought, that counts" in modern wars.

The real significance of the Battle of Algiers, however, is the startling justification of torture by a democratic state. Algerian archives are now open, and many French torturers wrote their autobiographies in the 1990s. The story they tell will not comfort generals who tell self-serving stories of torture's success. In fact, the battle shows the devastating consequences of torture for any democracy foolish enough to institutionalize it.

Torture by the French failed miserably in Vietnam, and the French could never entirely secure the Algerian countryside, so either torture really did not work or there was some additional factor that made the difference in Algiers.

Among many torture apologists, only Gen. Massu, with characteristic frankness, identified the additional factor. In Vietnam, Massu said, the French posts were riddled with informants. Whatever the French found by torture, the Vietnamese opposition knew immediately. And long distances separated the posts. In Algiers, the casbah was a small space that could be cordoned off, and a determined settler population backed the army. The army was not riddled with informants, and the FLN never knew what the army was doing.

And the French had an awesomely efficient informant system of their own. Massu took a census in the casbah and issued identity cards for the entire population. He ordered soldiers to paint numbers on each block of the casbah, and each block had a warden -- usually a trustworthy Algerian -- who reported all suspicious activities. Every morning, hooded informants controlled the exits to identify any suspects as they tried to leave. The FLN helped the French by calling a general strike, which revealed all its sympathizers. What made the difference for the French in Algiers was not torture, but the accurate intelligence obtained through public cooperation and informants.

In fact, no rank-and-file soldier has related a tale of how he personally, through timely interrogation, produced decisive information that stopped a ticking bomb. "As the pain of interrogation began," observed torturer Jean-Pierre Vittori, "they talked abundantly, citing the names of the dead or militants on the run, indicating locations of old hiding places in which we didn't find anything but some documents without interest." Detainees also provided names of their enemies -- true information, but without utility to the French.

The FLN military men had also been told, when forced to talk, to give up the names of their counterparts in the rival organization, the more accommodationist MNA (National Algerian Movement). Not very knowledgeable in the subtleties of Algerian nationalism, the French soldiers helped the FLN liquidate the infrastructure of the more cooperative organization and tortured MNA members, driving them into extreme opposition.

Unlike in the famous movie, which portrays the Algerian population as united behind the FLN and assumes that torture is why the French won the battle, the real Battle of Algiers was a story of collaboration and betrayal by the local population. It was, as Alistair Horne describes in "A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962," a population that was cowed beyond belief and blamed the FLN leadership for having brought them to this pass.

Gen. Massu's strategy was not to go after the FLN bombers but to identify and disable anyone who was even remotely associated with the FLN. It was not a selective sweep. The smallest interrogation unit in Algiers possessed 100,000 files. Out of the casbah's total population of 80,000 citizens, Massu arrested 30 to 40 percent of all males.

Torture forced "loyal" Algerians to cooperate, but after the battle, they either ended their loyalty to France or were assassinated. Torture forced a politics of extremes, destroying the middle that had cooperated with the French. In the end, there was no alternative to the FLN. As Paul Teitgin, the police prefect of Algiers, remarked, "Massu won the Battle of Algiers, but that meant losing the war."

The judicial system also collapsed under the weight of torture. Judges and prefects found themselves unable to deny warrants to armed men who tortured and killed for a living. Police records show that Teitgin issued 800 detention orders (arrêtes d'assignation) for eight months before the battle, 700 for the first three months of the battle and then 4,000 a month for the remaining months. By the end of the battle, he had issued orders to detain 24,000, most of whom (80 percent of the men and 66 percent of the women) were routinely tortured.

And "what to do with these poor devils after their 'use'?" asked a French soldier. Many torturers preferred to kill them, though, one soldier conceded, genocide was difficult. "There isn't enough place in the prisons and one can't kill everyone ..., so one releases them and they're going to tell others, and from mouth to mouth, the whole world knows." Then, he observed, their relatives and friends "join the resistance." By the end of the battle, about 13,000 Algerians (and some Frenchmen) were in detention camps and 3,000 "disappeared."

Doctors, whose task it was to monitor torture, were themselves corrupted by the torture. "Our problem is," remarked a doctor attached to a French torture unit, "should we heal this man who will again be tortured or let him die?" As oversight failed, the French military government arrested more people for flimsier reasons.

Use of torture also compromised the military. Lt. Col. Roger Trinquier, the famous French counterinsurgency expert, believed that torturers could act according to professional norms -- applying only the pain necessary to get information and then stopping. But the stories of rank-and-file torturers confirm previous studies of the dynamics of torture. "I realized," remarked a French soldier, "that torture could become a drug. I understood then that it was useless to claim to establish limits and forbidden practices, i.e. yes to the electrotorture but without abusing it, any further no. In this domain also, it was all or nothing."

Torture drifted headlong into sadism, continuing long after valuable information could be retrieved. For example, soldiers arrested a locksmith and tortured him for three days. In his pocket, the locksmith had bomb blueprints with the address of an FLN bomb factory in Algiers. The locksmith bought time, the bombers relocated and the raid by the French three days later fell on open air. Had the soldiers been able to read Arabic, they would have found the bomb factory days earlier. But they were too busy torturing. As one would predict, engaging in torture prevented the use of ordinary -- and more effective -- policing skills. (Incidentally, the French could not believe that the most wanted man in the casbah had spent months only 200 yards from the headquarters of the army commandant.)

The French military also fragmented under the competition associated with torture. Parallel systems of administration emerged, and infighting occurred between the various intelligence agencies. Officers lost control of their charges, or the charges refused to follow higher command. And in the end, the soldiers blamed the generals for exposing them to torture, noting its pernicious effects on their lives, their families and their friends -- a sense of betrayal that has not diminished with the years.

Yves Godard, Massu's chief lieutenant, had insisted there was no need to torture. He suggested having the informant network identify operatives and then subject them to a simple draconian choice: Talk or die. This would have produced the same result as torture without damage to the army.

The British successfully used precisely this strategy with German spies during World War II. British counterespionage managed to identify almost every German spy without using torture -- not just the 100 who hid among the 7,000 to 9,000 refugees coming to England to join their armies in exile each year, not just the 120 who arrived in similar fashion from friendly countries, but also the 70 sleeper cells that were in place before 1940. Only three agents eluded detection; five others refused to confess. Many Germans chose to become double agents rather than be tried and shot. They radioed incorrect coordinates for German V missiles, which landed harmlessly in farmers' fields. But for this misdirection, British historian Keegan concludes, in October 1944 alone close to 1,300 people would have died, with 10,000 more injured and 23,000 houses destroyed.

The U.S. Army's field manual for intelligence (FM34-52) notes that simple direct questioning of prisoners was 85 percent to 95 percent effective in World War II and 90 to 95 percent effective in the Vietnam War. What about those 5 percent at the margin? Couldn't savage, unprofessional, hit-or-miss torture yield some valuable information from them? Actually, there was one case in the Battle of Algiers in which torture did reveal important information.

In September 1957, in the last days of the battle, French soldiers detained a messenger known as "Djamal." Under torture, Djamal revealed where the last FLN leader in Algiers lay hidden. But that wasn't so important; informants had identified this location months before. The important information Djamal revealed was that the French government had misled the military and was quietly negotiating a peace settlement with the FLN. This was shocking news. It deeply poisoned the military's relationship with the civilian government, a legacy that played no small part in the collapse of the Fourth Republic in May 1958 and in the attempted coup by some French military officers against President De Gaulle in April 1961.

The French won the Battle of Algiers primarily through force, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture. Whoever authorized torture in Iraq undermined the prospect of good human intelligence. Even if the torture at Abu Ghraib served to produce more names ("actionable intelligence") and recruit informants, torture in the end polarized the population, eliminating the middle that might cooperate. Dividing the world into "friends" and "enemies," those who are with us or against us, meant that we lost the cooperation of those who wished to be neither or who were enemies of our enemies.

Whoever authorized torture in Afghanistan and Iraq also destroyed the soldiers who were ordered to perform it. Studies of torturers show that they would rather work as killers on death squads, where the work is easier. Torture is hard, stressful work. Many torturers develop emotional problems, become alcoholics, beat their families and harbor a deep sense of betrayal toward the military brass that hangs them out to twist in the wind. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib had dreams, dreams that democracy promised to fulfill, dreams that now may never be fulfilled thanks to the arrogance of their superiors.

Those who authorize torture need to remember that it isn't something that simply happens in some other country. Soldiers trained in stealthy techniques of torture take these techniques back into civilian life as policemen and private security guards. It takes years to discover the effects of having tortured. Americans' use of electric torture in Vietnam appeared in Arkansas prisons in the 1960s and in Chicago squad rooms in the 1970s and 1980s.

Likewise, the excruciating water tortures U.S. soldiers used in the Spanish-American War appeared in American policing in the next two decades. For those who had been tortured, it was small comfort when, on Memorial Day 1902, President Roosevelt regretted the "few acts of cruelty" American troops had performed.

Some believe that judges can issue selective torture warrants to security officers in important cases. But the rapid increase in the number of torture warrants issued during the Battle of Algiers is evidence enough that civil servants can exercise little selective control once they have licensed unlimited power.

Others believe that torture occasionally is necessary and that when it is, one should have to answer for one's actions before the law. But "morally justified" torture does not resemble morally justified civil disobedience. Civil rights protesters break the law in public and then submit their behavior to juries and courts. But I know of no modern torturer who voluntarily submitted to public scrutiny and took the heat. Like boasts of bravery, this opinion is too easy to hold when there is no danger of it being tested. Modern torturers operate in secrecy and specialize in techniques that leave no marks. What would we really know of Abu Ghraib in the absence of the photographs?

And once soldiers get away with torture, they repeat it. Few things predict future torture as much as past impunity.

It is easy to criticize the leaders and torture apologists who misled us and continue to do so. What is harder is to determine how to repair the damage. One crazy man can block the well, but it takes the whole village to remove the stone, an Iranian proverb says.

We can learn from the mistakes of other democracies that have tortured. These democracies lost their wars because the brutality they licensed reduced their intelligence, compromised their allies and corrupted their military and government, and they could not come to terms with that.

When the politicians first heard of the torture, they denied it happened, minimized the violence and called it ill treatment. When the evidence mounted, they tried a few bad apples, disparaged the prisoners and observed that terrorists had done worse things. They justified the torture as effective and necessary for the extreme circumstances and countercharged that critics were aiding the enemy. As time passed, they offered apologies but accepted no consequences and argued that there was no point in dwelling on past events.

The torture continued because these democrats could not institutionally recommit themselves to limited power at home or abroad. The torture interrogations yielded the predictable results, and the democracies remained mired in their wars despite overwhelming military superiority against a far smaller enemy. Soon the politicians had to choose between losing their democracy and losing their war. That is how democracies lose wars.


ORIGINAL ARTICLE


All the original info can be cross referenced at your liesure . When you do you can come to your own conclusions . This particular article is from an ANTI torture response to a pro torture stance. This particular article needs to be parsed to gain access to other information . The torture itself worked to get good info . What was done with it and how and when it was used is irrelevant to the question of wheather torture can produce good info . The use of torture to get info screwed them in the end because of the political ramifications of its use and in a democracy without the knowlage and support of the people at home France lost its will to continue . Thats the point I made before . The French actions in Algeria give you all the lessons you need to learn both pro and con to fight an insugency . BUT it seems people never learn .
This is not the only article and study that backs me up .
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/01/12/intellectual-dishonesty-among-some-torture-opponents-anne-applebaum-edition/
http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~salient/issues/00comm/blackbk.html
http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/c262.htm

Its a very good read (thanks :) )- but it really doesn't conclusively support either of our points. (ie the section quoted from it below)
Its a problem that militaries will differ about its effectivness. Its always seems to me, to be the last act of a desperate power to resort to. Its asign of weakness.

Yves Godard, Massu's chief lieutenant, had insisted there was no need to torture. He suggested having the informant network identify operatives and then subject them to a simple draconian choice: Talk or die. This would have produced the same result as torture without damage to the army.

The British successfully used precisely this strategy with German spies during World War II. British counterespionage managed to identify almost every German spy without using torture -- not just the 100 who hid among the 7,000 to 9,000 refugees coming to England to join their armies in exile each year, not just the 120 who arrived in similar fashion from friendly countries, but also the 70 sleeper cells that were in place before 1940. Only three agents eluded detection; five others refused to confess. Many Germans chose to become double agents rather than be tried and shot. They radioed incorrect coordinates for German V missiles, which landed harmlessly in farmers' fields. But for this misdirection, British historian Keegan concludes, in October 1944 alone close to 1,300 people would have died, with 10,000 more injured and 23,000 houses destroyed.

The U.S. Army's field manual for intelligence (FM34-52) notes that simple direct questioning of prisoners was 85 percent to 95 percent effective in World War II and 90 to 95 percent effective in the Vietnam War. What about those 5 percent at the margin? Couldn't savage, unprofessional, hit-or-miss torture yield some valuable information from them?

If you are interested in the effectiveness of torture in the modern sense (ie post 9/11) i suggest you read (if you haven't done so already), the lawyer Alan Dershowitz, an advocate of torture in ceratin aspects.

Did you even read your own source?

Here's a few snippets in case you missed 'em Beer:

Yet the French won by applying overwhelming force in an extremely constrained space, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture.

The story they tell will not comfort generals who tell self-serving stories of torture's success. In fact, the battle shows the devastating consequences of torture for any democracy foolish enough to institutionalize it.

In fact, no rank-and-file soldier has related a tale of how he personally, through timely interrogation, produced decisive information that stopped a ticking bomb. "As the pain of interrogation began," observed torturer Jean-Pierre Vittori, "they talked abundantly, citing the names of the dead or militants on the run, indicating locations of old hiding places in which we didn't find anything but some documents without interest." Detainees also provided names of their enemies -- true information, but without utility to the French.

The judicial system also collapsed under the weight of torture. Judges and prefects found themselves unable to deny warrants to armed men who tortured and killed for a living. Police records show that Teitgin issued 800 detention orders (arrêtes d'assignation) for eight months before the battle, 700 for the first three months of the battle and then 4,000 a month for the remaining months. By the end of the battle, he had issued orders to detain 24,000, most of whom (80 percent of the men and 66 percent of the women) were routinely tortured.

Doctors, whose task it was to monitor torture, were themselves corrupted by the torture. "Our problem is," remarked a doctor attached to a French torture unit, "should we heal this man who will again be tortured or let him die?" As oversight failed, the French military government arrested more people for flimsier reasons.

Torture drifted headlong into sadism, continuing long after valuable information could be retrieved. For example, soldiers arrested a locksmith and tortured him for three days. In his pocket, the locksmith had bomb blueprints with the address of an FLN bomb factory in Algiers. The locksmith bought time, the bombers relocated and the raid by the French three days later fell on open air. Had the soldiers been able to read Arabic, they would have found the bomb factory days earlier. But they were too busy torturing.

Whoever authorized torture in Afghanistan and Iraq also destroyed the soldiers who were ordered to perform it. Studies of torturers show that they would rather work as killers on death squads, where the work is easier. Torture is hard, stressful work. Many torturers develop emotional problems, become alcoholics, beat their families and harbor a deep sense of betrayal toward the military brass that hangs them out to twist in the wind. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib had dreams, dreams that democracy promised to fulfill, dreams that now may never be fulfilled thanks to the arrogance of their superiors.

All the original info can be cross referenced at your liesure . The torture itself worked to get good info . The [b]use[/i] of torture to get info screwed them in the end because of the political ramifications of its use in a democracy without the knowlage and support of the people . Thats the point I made before .

There's a lot more in your article that shows that torture not only didn't work but was counter-productive and harmful to society. Seriously, your article is a straight-up expose` on how torture DOESN't work. You tried to support your case, but you merely ended up squashing it...with your own source! Did you even read your own article??

I told you its an anti torture article... ;) You have to use the references it gives ..like the names of the french generals who wrote biographys and read what they said..the torturers themselves ...to come to a conclusion. also the Croziers articles ...that he did tons of research with bibliographys... (Thats if you want to get to the bottom of it ) to cross reference. otherwise you are just looking for info to back something you already believe . I am posting my links as this slow ass server allows me ... :rolleyes:

Gigglemore......
Why dont you try actually reading what I wrote to explain why I posted THAT article instead of having orgasms .

You have to use the references it gives ..like the names of the french generals who wrote biographys and read what they said..the torturers themselves ...to come to a conclusion.

The story they tell will not comfort generals who tell self-serving stories of torture's success. In fact, the battle shows the devastating consequences of torture for any democracy foolish enough to institutionalize it.

:rolleyes:

Gigglemore......
Why dont you try actually reading what I wrote to explain why I posted THAT article instead of having orgasms .

Ah, I am diminished by your superior debating skillz. :rolleyes:

I did, but even in parsing it in light of what you said, it pointed clearly AWAY from the efficacy of torture. It said, in no uncertain terms, that intelligence was hampered by torture.

So, basically, even the lone example of how torture works turns out to at the very least be a complex case study that only suggests torture to someone if said person is already incurably pro-torure.

Again, of all the things to put one's faith in, why do you choose torture?

Again I was responding to a question as to wheather torture works in providing answers from the person being tortured. Digest that and understand it. I used an anti torture article to get refferences to articles that describe how torture is used to produce information....you following this ?
I then read about methods used and the results and if they produced actionable information..articles and info from the tortures themselves and from those that claim torture works. I started to post links to info before you went into spasms because an article seems to back whatever the hell you want it to back...The important thing in the article is simply this TORTURE was used to get info and the info was used to fight and defeat terrorist . The fact the FRENCH lost is well duhhhhh well known . Why they lost is not and is up for debate. IF you read what I wrote you will see it was IMO because of the POLITICAL implications of USING torture. Look for the bold black used in case you get lost .

All the original info can be cross referenced at your liesure . When you do you can come to your own conclusions . This particular article is from an ANTI torture response to a pro torture stance. This particular article needs to be parsed to gain access to other information . The torture itself worked to get good info . What was done with it and how and when it was used is irrelevant to the question of wheather torture can produce good info . The use of torture to get info screwed them in the end because of the political ramifications of its use and in a democracy without the knowlage and support of the people at home France lost its will to continue . Thats the point I made before . The French actions in Algeria give you all the lessons you need to learn both pro and con to fight an insugency . BUT it seems people never learn .


How did you miss this ? Or should I guess ?

I think not in this war . If I was protecting my country from a WMD , thats different I would volunteer to pull the balls off with plyers and shoot the bastards myself. I would imagine some still would not think it was worth it . And I would understand .



As English military theorist Brian Crozier put it, "By such ruthless methods, Massu smashed the FLN organization in Algiers and re-established unchallenged French authority. And he did the job in seven months -- from March to mid-October."

It is hard to argue with success. Here were professional torturers who produced consistently reliable information in a short time. It was a breathtaking military victory against terrorism by a democracy that used torture

he then gives you HIS opinion why it didnt work ..both sides of the argument in one nice informative article . It also gives you other avenues to continue your search for what happened and why . Not to mention an insight into why terrorist want to kill people from the west . And a sense of irony for France's attitude in the region .

Although Aussaresses says he was reluctant at first to use torture, he appears to have been easily convinced of its usefulness. Shortly after his arrival in Constantine, a policeman told him he could either "torture a suspected terrorist or tell the parents of the victims that ifs better to let scores of innocent people be killed... than make a single accomplice suffer. That short discussion swept away any doubts l may still have harbored." Then came the FLN massacres of August 20, 1955. In Philippeville and in other cities throughout the Constantine province, Algerians brandishing knives descended on people in their cars, killing seventy-one Europeans and fifty-two Muslim "traitors." As Aussaresses recalls, "When l saw children chopped up into pieces, with their throats slit or crushed to death, the women who had been disemboweled or decapitated, l think l really forgot what having any pity meant."



You just have to read this stuff yourself .
http://www.algeria-watch.de/farticle/analyse/shatz_torture.htm

Okay...I...will...speak...slowly...so...you...can...follow.

Since....there...is...ample....information...that...torture...doesn't...work...but...only...limited. ..information...that...torure...does...indeed...work...,in...limited...circumstances,...with...limit ed...scope,...on...limited...subjects,...the...belief...that...torture...works...is...an...act...of. ..conscious...choice...or...opinion.

Therefore...belief...that...torture...works...is...an...act...of...faith.

Why...then...,do...you...personally...choose...to...put....your...faith...in...
something...like...torture?

Also, since your sources for the efficacy of torture are the torturers themselves, how can they be considered an unbiased and credible source for pinning your belief in something as morally wrong, evil and damaging as torture?

You have ONE example of where torture MAY have worked, and even that example is tarnished by contradictory examples.

The french and the Germans and the Soviet Union provide you with millions of examples...not to mention Saddam and sons and the Egyptians and the Turks and the Vietnamese and former prisoners from the United States that were tortured and gave info..and etc. and etc. and etc. :rolleyes: So please save the one example crap. Its much harder to prove that torture doesnt work than to prove it does. ITS EXCEPTED THAT IT WILL WORK . Of course your studies by anti torture advocates dont aggree...who would have thought of that ..Now before you say I advocate torture read on...
I gave you the only example I could concieve of where I personally would consider torture ..a nuke or other WMD set to go off and I needed to know where and when . Then yes I would do whatever was needed to get the info.
I also said its easy to understand why others would not even under those conditions .

-snip--ITS EXCEPTED THAT IT WILL WORK

It's only ACCEPTED by people that are pre-disposed to believe in torture's efficacy. The problems with torture are manifold: A. Bad intelligence is often gained by use of torture. B. Good intelligence is usually only actionable when corroborated by other intelligence sources. C. Those who commit torture almost inevitably force themselves to believe that it works as a defense mechanism to avoid morally inflicted guilt complexes. D. Torture, when used as a way to quell dissent, almost always works counter to quelling said dissent. E. All the examples you cited are by regines almost universally recognized as repressive/illegal/evil.

Now, if I had a bastard under my control who had information I needed to directly protect my family/loved ones/close friends, I don't know how I'd react.

It's only ACCEPTED by people that are pre-disposed to believe in torture's efficacy. The problems with torture are manifold: A. Bad intelligence is often gained by use of torture. B. Good intelligence is usually only actionable when corroborated by other intelligence sources. C. Those who commit torture almost inevitably force themselves to believe that it works as a defense mechanism to avoid morally inflicted guilt complexes. D. Torture, when used as a way to quell dissent, almost always works counter to quelling said dissent. E. All the examples you cited are by regines almost universally recognized as repressive/illegal/evil.

Now, if I had a bastard under my control who had information I needed to directly protect my family/loved ones/close friends, I don't know how I'd react.

My point exactly :D Aint that nuts ? Just reading about it makes me feel filthy...and you didnt even scratch the surface with what I posted...some of this stuff is ...well it will make you ill ...especially survivors who recount what they had done to them to break them and make them give info..
read this..http://www.algeria-watch.de/farticle/analyse/shatz_torture.htm

They are some sick bastards . the vietnam ones are almost unreadable and the Korean war vets... well some sick stuff.

General Marcel Bigeard, who was also accused of torture by lghilahriz, and who is said to have thrown Algerian prisoners from helicopters during the war,

Wonder what they think of Abu Ghrahib ? They must be muttering " bunch of amatuers " ...