Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

On the assumption that Torture does not work.

The most important information you can get from a prisoner in a war where the enemy is is an insurgency hiding among the citizenry, is names of the fellow combatants. That is why torture is so routinely used by organizations that are fighting insurgencies that are hiding among the citizenry.

That is also why in combat, soldiers that are not wearing uniforms are summarily shot. That is also why the Geneva convention addresses wars where each side wears uniforms. When people are not wearing uniforms they are considered spies and a whole other rules of conduct sets in.

The greatest asset the insurgent has is hiding their identity and their comrads identities. Without keeping their identities secret, they can't continue the insurgency.

In the war on terror, if the enemy soliders can't hide their identities, then they can't do much good. If we knew who the 9-11 terrorists were they could never pulled off that plot. In order for Al Queda to hit us again it is imperative that their operative's identities remain secret so they can move among our population undetected.

So the most important information we can get is who the other insurgents are. I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that both the Nazis and the Soviets (and many other totalitarian regimes) have been able to get insurgents to name the names of their collegues through torture. That is why many underground insurgencies each member is limited to the amont of other operatives that they know.

It also seems to me that these terrorists are not going to give up the names of their fellow terrorists voluntarily. Why would they give up the name of a fellow fighter for God (and probably a close friend ) unless forced to.

So it seems to me, in the war on terror, it is probable that torture will help disclose the identities of other terrorists, and thereby save lives.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Oh give me break.

Assuming we can get information through torture that will save american lives, you can gurantee that we can get that same information through other means that will save the same lives.

That just seems completely unrealistic to me.

Why does that seem unrealistic to you? Compared to where these guys come from, we're b-teamers at torture. They expect to get tortured. What I doubt they can be prepared for, however, is sophisticated interrogation techniques.

Do a little research online about the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation tactic. You'll find little support for torture.

Interesting op-ed piece called "The Torture Myth":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._opinion/opeds

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the assumption that Torture does not work.

The most important information you can get from a prisoner in a war where the enemy is is an insurgency hiding among the citizenry, is names of the fellow combatants. That is why torture is so routinely used by organizations that are fighting insurgencies that are hiding among the citizenry.

That is also why in combat, soldiers that are not wearing uniforms are summarily shot. That is also why the Geneva convention addresses wars where each side wears uniforms. When people are not wearing uniforms they are considered spies and a whole other rules of conduct sets in.

The greatest asset the insurgent has is hiding their identity and their comrads identities. Without keeping their identities secret, they can't continue the insurgency.

In the war on terror, if the enemy soliders can't hide their identities, then they can't do much good. If we knew who the 9-11 terrorists were they could never pulled off that plot. In order for Al Queda to hit us again it is imperative that their operative's identities remain secret so they can move among our population undetected.

So the most important information we can get is who the other insurgents are. I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that both the Nazis and the Soviets (and many other totalitarian regimes) have been able to get insurgents to name the names of their collegues through torture. That is why many underground insurgencies each member is limited to the amont of other operatives that they know.

It also seems to me that these terrorists are not going to give up the names of their fellow terrorists voluntarily. Why would they give up the name of a fellow fighter for God (and probably a close friend ) unless forced to.

So it seems to me, in the war on terror, it is probable that torture will help disclose the identities of other terrorists, and thereby save lives.

let's hold judgement until we hear if SS is Omniscient or if he's just mouthing other people's opinons.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the assumption that Torture does not work.

The most important information you can get from a prisoner in a war where the enemy is is an insurgency hiding among the citizenry, is names of the fellow combatants. That is why torture is so routinely used by organizations that are fighting insurgencies that are hiding among the citizenry.

That is also why in combat, soldiers that are not wearing uniforms are summarily shot. That is also why the Geneva convention addresses wars where each side wears uniforms. When people are not wearing uniforms they are considered spies and a whole other rules of conduct sets in.

The greatest asset the insurgent has is hiding their identity and their comrads identities. Without keeping their identities secret, they can't continue the insurgency.

In the war on terror, if the enemy soliders can't hide their identities, then they can't do much good. If we knew who the 9-11 terrorists were they could never pulled off that plot. In order for Al Queda to hit us again it is imperative that their operative's identities remain secret so they can move among our population undetected.

So the most important information we can get is who the other insurgents are. I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that both the Nazis and the Soviets (and many other totalitarian regimes) have been able to get insurgents to name the names of their collegues through torture. That is why many underground insurgencies each member is limited to the amont of other operatives that they know.

It also seems to me that these terrorists are not going to give up the names of their fellow terrorists voluntarily. Why would they give up the name of a fellow fighter for God (and probably a close friend ) unless forced to.

So it seems to me, in the war on terror, it is probable that torture will help disclose the identities of other terrorists, and thereby save lives.

The Nazis and Soviets are not around any longer. It must not have worked too well.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am comfortable with the idea that our leaders may, in extraordinary circumstances, do things that aren't legal. For example, Clinton authorized some renditions over legal objections, as described in Clarke's book. I am not comfortable with the proposition that hypothetical extraordinary circumstances are a justification to change the law governing ordinary situations. If the situations are extraordinary and compelling, I trust prosecutors to make the right call later on. Take the CIA operative who hypothetically tortures a terrorist who knows where a nuclear bomb is about to go off. Does anyone think em will be prosecuted?

That makes sense. So you agree that in certain circumstances torture is the right call.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are omniscient? wow! why didn't you say so earlier, we could have avoided all this arguing........or wait. Are you just basing that on some guy's opinion you read?

No, I follow W's example. I don't read. I just go with my gut.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The Nazis and Soviets are not around any longer. It must not have worked too well.

That is a pathetic response. And so was that article you posted. In there a guy admited to making an insurgent watching comrad die. But he didn't torture anyone. What about his comrad?

The Nazis didn't last because we overthrew them at a great cost of life money. The Soviet did not last because the population turned against them. But they held onto a hostile population for seventy years, and what brought them down was economics, not their treatment of insurgents.

Do you deny that their torture techniques were very good at turning up fellow insurgents.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
let's hold judgement until we hear if SS is Omniscient or if he's just mouthing other people's opinons.

You could just torture him and then you'd know, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That makes sense. So you agree that in certain circumstances torture is the right call.

It's always wrong. Maybe what I'm saying is that it should be against the law, and anyone who feels driven to torture because of the specific circumstances they find themselves in always can use the necessity defense.

[Spanky]

I do think that our use of torture diminishes our allies desire to help us in our war. In addition, I think our use of torture does make the populations of muslim countrys less inclined to help us. In other words, if forty percent of the populatoin of Kuwait supported us, now it is only thirty five percent once they find out we are torturing people. We look less hypocritical if don't use torture, and I for one, think hypocracy is one of the most effective ways of turning people against you.

On the other hand, in this type of war, there is no question that we can get information from detainees that will save American lives. Secrecy and secret identies is their most important weapon. I just think it is common sense that people won't rat on their friends unless forced. And pain is a very effective tool in getting people to betray their friends.

So like most decisions in life, we need to choose the lesser of two evils. Each choice will bring benefits and costs.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is a pathetic response. And so was that article you posted. In there a guy admited to making an insurgent watching comrad die. But he didn't torture anyone. What about his comrad?

The Nazis didn't last because we overthrew them at a great cost of life money. The Soviet did not last because the population turned against them. But they held onto a hostile population for seventy years, and what brought them down was economics, not their treatment of insurgents.

Do you deny that their torture techniques were very good at turning up fellow insurgents.

There were robust underground movements in both countries up until their demise. I deny that torture was effective.

I've been poking around looking at different articles on the efficacy of torture, and the concensus seems to be that torture is effective in producing general confessions -- "Yes, I am a terrorist" -- but not very effective in elliciting specific information, such as names, dates, and places. I challenge you to provide information that indicates that torture produces reliable interrogation results.

Also, I agree with Ty. I could give a shit about what happens to terrorists as individuals. There are certain circumstances under which torture may be excusable. However, that does not mean that torture should be our policy, our regular course of conduct, rather than an exception.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There were robust underground movements in both countries up until their demise. I deny that torture was effective.

I've been poking around looking at different articles on the efficacy of torture, and the concensus seems to be that torture is effective in producing general confessions -- "Yes, I am a terrorist" -- but not very effective in elliciting specific information, such as names, dates, and places. I challenge you to provide information that indicates that torture produces reliable interrogation results.

Also, I agree with Ty. I could give a shit about what happens to terrorists as individuals. There are certain circumstances under which torture may be excusable. However, that does not mean that torture should be our policy, our regular course of conduct, rather than an exception.

An exception is policy. Or did I miss the argument that we should make torture routine for everyone we would like to give us information, as a first resort?

How much "torture" do we do, anyway? And is that "torture" defined as any physical contact, or only less debatable and debated conduct? Screw the sensationalized examples of people who were hurt, or the lawsuits from those who can feel the pea beneath the cell mattress. Other than for moral/legal debate/resolution, how big of a problem is this?

[Spanky]

:dance: :dance2: :sportswav: :bounce:

Governor Signs School-Based Health Clinic Bill
AB 2560 a serious infringement on parental authority

Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 2560 (Ridley- Thomas-D) this morning during a press conference. AB 2560 will establish, retain and expand “health centers” in public schools. The bill allows school- based health centers to provide diagnostic and treatment services to students. According to the bill, school officials may also immunize students and provide counseling for “newer morbidities” such as teen sex, substance abuse, smoking, violence and behavioral problems.

“This legislation is presented as easy access to healthcare for students.” stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “In reality, the government is taking control of children’s healthcare and, in essence, telling parents that school officials are better qualified to supervise their children’s health needs.”

“Another alarming aspect of this bill is that students may be treated—on school campus—for so- called ‘illnesses’ that the school officials believe they suffer from—this includes the vaguely titled ‘behavioral problems’,” said England. “Government has no right to remove any child from class and medicate him or her with birth control, anti-depressants, or other behavior-altering drugs. As the parent, I alone have the responsibility and authority to care for my child.”

”When presented with a similar bill, Governor Gray Davis vetoed it,” continued England. “Children are falling further behind in their academic studies. So why is the government spending tax payer dollars to build health centers on campus? Our schools should focus on their sole purpose: educating—not medicating—children.”

“It is not the role of government to provide comprehensive healthcare to students,” stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “The governor just vetoed SB 840, the socialist universal healthcare legislation, and then he signs a bill that basically does the same thing in our schools.”

“Parents possess the sole authority over the healthcare needs of their children. By signing this bill, the governor sends the wrong message to parents: government will care for your children, not you,” stated Turney. “We are very concerned that parental consent will not be obtained for serious health matters including intrusive medical procedures and behavior-altering medication. Parents have the right to care for their children—without government intervention.”

Cry me a river:

:violin:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Military coup in Thailand.

Bummer.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we're 5 years into this. if torture hadn't gotten us any information so far, do you think they'd be fighting for the right to keep doing it?

I'm sure you're correct, Mr. Beria . . . .

I suppose we just assess the costs and the (completely unknown) benefits differently.

S_A_M