thirdworld19 0 #101 May 3, 2008 Quote QuoteThe Intelligence Science Board report that was referenced in a previous post stated that there has been no research on the effectiveness of any interrogation techniques (and not as previously stated that torture is ineffective). The experts cannot say that torture is ineffective - as much as they want to. What was the context in which that quote you cited was culled? It was 'culled' from the summary of the entire report. This was the bottom line of the report. Now to take other excerpts from the report that don't represent the spirit of the report and twist them to fit your argument would be culling - IMHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites thirdworld19 0 #102 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteLet me try to make this understandable. The US has a policy of no torturing. They (the infamous 'they') must live a public life as if this is true - no torture. However, 'everyone knows' that we do torture - or send people to countries to do this for them. So we are saying one thing and doing another. I haven't heard that denied in this thread. That 1st paragraph was background - no need to reply. Please read entire post first and reply to the point of the post, not each individual word. QuoteNow, to try to bolster our public image of 'no torture' (because everyone knows we do it) we have various experts state that it is ineffective. (As a side note, have these experts actually tortured people - is this first hand experience that they are basing their opinions on?) If torture is ineffective, why would we do it? Of course we don't. It's bad and it doesn't work anyway. (Kind of sad that this is the reason for not doing it.) The information that is put out there to support this policy of no torture is propaganda. Again, did Condi lie when she spoke of rendition flights, or did she just have no clue that we do that? So you really believe it bolsters our image to torture despite claiming ing that torture is not effective? That doesn't make any sense. It hurts our image. Again, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. QuoteWhy do we torture people? Why has it been done over hundreds of years - and why do we continue to do it? Good question. Maybe the government hires, as interrogators, a bunch of sick fucks who get their kicks on hurting people. Or, maybe because it is effective in some circumstances. The information we have indicates that the latter is not the case. Again, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). And to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Don't people read those!?! Powell wrote: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." The letter did not say he was against it because torture was ineffective. And saying that he did is a fallacious argument. The US continues to do it, because it is effective in some situations. QuoteAs the Intelligence Science Board report states, maybe we just need some empirical evidence to prove it one way or the other. Good luck finding volunteers for that experiment. Would you like to be one of the subjects that gets tortured? I bet they can get you to confess to killing Kennedy. Or Lincoln. Never suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. QuoteI don't doubt that many think that being humane works better than torture. Including those with actual interrogation experience. Of course, did I state otherwise? QuoteI would think that those people didn't start off the interrogation with torture though. They probably started nice and got what they wanted - so no need to revert to torture. Why would they when experience has shown humane treatment works better? Precisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. QuoteIt's the stubborn enemy, when the humane way didn't work, who ends up with torture. Just because the humane way works better for some, or most, doesn't make torture ineffective. True, but there is no indication that torture will work for the hypothetical ten percent of people who offer no information when treated humanely, either. Please support this statement. Are you saying that we have NEVER gotten any usable information through torture? Naive statement if that's the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #103 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants. The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules. Why "obliged"? We didn't have to play by the same rules to beat Germany and Japan. And we're a much stronger country because of that. Actually, we were losing our a*s...until we adopted the tactics of the Germans and Japanese. There was a point, when our soldiers stopped taking prisoners, we shot Japanese and German sailors in the water and shot Japanese pilots, under their parachutes....just like they had done to us. The US daytime bombing practice was more accurate but had little effect, since it was directed mostly at hardened military targets. The British practice of night-time "area bombing", was directed at the civilian population and had greater effect."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 1 #104 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants. The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules. Why "obliged"? We didn't have to play by the same rules to beat Germany and Japan. And we're a much stronger country because of that. Actually, we were losing our a*s...until we adopted the tactics of the Germans and Japanese. There was a point, when our soldiers stopped taking prisoners, we shot Japanese and German sailors in the water and shot Japanese pilots, under their parachutes....just like they had done to us. The US daytime bombing practice was more accurate but had little effect, since it was directed mostly at hardened military targets. The British practice of night-time "area bombing", was directed at the civilian population and had greater effect. Right. But we did not adopt their torture methods, which is what this thread is about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #105 May 3, 2008 I haven't "avoided" answering anything...you ignore what I say, change my wording to try to make a valid argument and frankly, I don't play that game. You're basically recounting the failed US strategy already in evidence, in Iraq....same strategy we used in Vietnam and the same strategy the Russians used, against Afghanistan. As for greatness of generals or other leaders, it is purely opinion. R.E. Lee was a great leader, a great man and according to most, a great general. As far as I'm concerned, objectively speaking....he was a great leader but a lousy general. When he failed to match the tactics of his enemy, he basically wiped-out his own army."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #106 May 3, 2008 Quote Right. But we did not adopt their torture methods, which is what this thread is about. No, we haven't...but some are asserting that we are "approaching" their torture methods, by the alleged use of "waterboarding". I am simply saying that we have every right, to adopt their methods...across the board, both in battle and in the treatment of prisoners."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 1 #107 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Right. But we did not adopt their torture methods, which is what this thread is about. No, we haven't...but some are asserting that we are "approaching" their torture methods, by the alleged use of "waterboarding". I am simply saying that we have every right, to adopt their methods...across the board, both in battle and in the treatment of prisoners. And my position is whether we have the right or not, we are a better country if we don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #108 May 3, 2008 QuoteIt was 'culled' from the summary of the entire report. This was the bottom line of the report. Now to take other excerpts from the report that don't represent the spirit of the report and twist them to fit your argument would be culling - IMHO. You are misrepresenting both the report’s impetus, which I tried to explain to you, and the report’s findings. Primary data. (1) There is no "summary." There are acknowledgements, a forward, a prologue, introduction, commentaries (one of which I cited), and 11 scientific papers. There isn’t an Executive Summary or even a conclusions section. (2) The quote you pulled is from Otis’ commentary (p. xix). The same author who stated, explicitly: “(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that 'educing' information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable." (3) You are correct about at least one thing: conducting scientific-based research (repeatable, systematic, public/open) on the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation method in the US is very difficult or impossible to do. Imagine trying to get that approved through Internal Review Board (IRB)? That is largely to what Otis’ (culled) comment refers. This is analogous to research & FDA approval process on new therapeutics for smallpox and nerve agents. Just like researchers are prohibited from torturing research subjects as part of an investigatory program, researchers are also prohibited from intentionally infecting a research subject with smallpox or exposing them to lethal doses of sarin or VX. In the quote you culled the precise term “scientific research” is used. Regimes that have done the kind of controlled “scientific research” on human responses to torture are, again, not ones that I would advocate the US emulate. Would you? (I assume not, but making assumptions is rarely safe in SC). The quote, which references Chapter 5 & 6 in the report, does not refer to historical accounts, historical analysis, lessons learned, scientific research on methods that are legally permissive, or the body of evidence, briefly highlighted in post #32. I will always agree that more research is beneficial - that largely reflects my inclinations - whether sub-atomic physics, nanobiotechnology, cybersecurity, or ancient Sumerian history. (4) Chapter 5 refers to a historical case, CIA’s KUBARK manual, which included some “enhanced interrogation” methods, a la “Jack Bauer & 24.” Here’s the abstract from Chapter 5 (p. 95), which I echoes the excerpts I previously cited: “ A careful reading of the KUBARK manual is essential for anyone involved in interrogation, if perhaps for no other reason than to uncover a definition of interrogation that accurately captures the fundamental nature of interrogation while also concretely establishing what it is not (i.e., a game between two people to be won or lost). A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation, and especially to the conduct of interrogation in field operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the discipline. Most observers, even those within professional circles, have unfortunately been influenced by the media’s colorful (and artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of force – be it physical or psychological – by the interrogator against the hapless, often slow-witted subject. This false assumption is belied by historic trends that show the majority of sources (some estimates range as high as 90 percent) have provided meaningful answers to pertinent questions in response to direct questioning (i.e., questions posed in an essentially administrative manner rather than in concert with an orchestrated approach designed to weaken the source’s resistance). The chapter goes on to note: “In an emphatic article, Alfred W. McCoy provides a sweeping review of the development of the KUBARK manual and its disturbing legacy throughout the remaining course of Cold War history. McCoy makes a compelling argument that coercive interrogation methods, such as those set forth in the KUBARK manual, carry a far-reaching negative impact on U.S. foreign policy: a premise with critical implications for current counterinsurgency operations in Iraq.”Also is Chapter 5: “The devaluation of rapport — that is, building an operational accord [italics in original] with a source — as an effective means of gaining compliance from a resistant source is in large measure the product of the misguided public debate over the role of interrogation in the Global War on Terror, one that seems invariably to focus on the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario..” … “A likely factor driving the progressive ‘dumbing down’ of interrogation and interrogation training in the United States has been the ubiquitous treatment of the craft in movies and Hollywood. Viewers are treated to endless examples of the calculating, quick-witted interrogator who can rapidly assess the vulnerabilities of the source/prisoner and instantaneously devise and orchestrate an approach that almost immediately leverages compliance. Of course, what the viewer does not see (or, therefore, remember) is that these five-minute long vignettes are carefully scripted and repeatedly rehearsed. The actors do not deal with a constant chain of unknowns, nor are they asked to remain joined in the intense interpersonal exchange for hours, perhaps days, on end. It is critical that this artificial and often unrealistic view of interrogation not be allowed to influence doctrine for the real world.” The Chapter goes through in detail what has been shown to work from KUBARK and what resembles “Jack Bauer”-style visions of the real world. It also makes some provocative comments w/r/t how directly SERE training transfers to HUMINT and interrogations (or doesn’t). (5) Chapter 6 is half literature review of psychological methods (no torture) and half review of domestic law enforcement (including FBI) SOPs and case studies, including ones from domestic law enforcement in Britain and one from Northern Ireland. (6) By the thinking you are proposing applying to the ISB report the “9-11 Commission Report” is to be interpreted as suggesting the US pursue al Qa’eda-style training & tactics. In the report’s preface (intentionally misconstruing here to be illustrative) it does say “We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal.” (Now, of course, the 9-11 Commissioners aren’t praising al Qa’eda for those traits or advocating the US adopt al Qa'eda tactics.) Again, since you are advocating that torture as part of interrogation is effective, the onus now goes to you to provide some evidence of that. All in all – thanks for getting me to revisit the ISB report. I love diving deep into a text. Also helped further strengthen the argument against the use of torture as part of interrogation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #109 May 3, 2008 QuoteYou're basically recounting the failed US strategy already in evidence, in Iraq....same strategy we used in Vietnam and the same strategy the Russians used, against Afghanistan. Ignoring the issue (huge on its own) of what part & when US strategy "failed" in Iraq, the only or best alternative to traditional state-on-state or peer-competitor military operations is not catastrophic anhiliation. Especially 5 years after an invasion. Another option, probably more effective (need another thread), is counterinsurgency strategy, i.e., the kind espoused by LTC John Nagl (USA), GEN David Petraeus (USA), LTG John Amos (USMC), and Prof Sarah Sewell (among others), to enable security, stability, transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) operations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #110 May 3, 2008 Quote And my position is whether we have the right or not, we are a better country if we don't. I totally agree, on principle but unfortunately, times have changed, the nature of warfare has changed and militarily speaking...you can't put a kitten, up against a badger. As I said in the beginning...taking no prisoners, is the best course of action....nobody gets "mistreated" and everybody's happy. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #111 May 3, 2008 Quote That 1st paragraph was background - no need to reply. Please read entire post first and reply to the point of the post, not each individual word. It's bad form to tell people how to respond, especially when you do so without using proper markup. Quote Again, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. So why are you arguing so vehemently with those who also claim the opposite? Quote Again, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). And to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Don't people read those!?! Powell wrote: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." The letter did not say he was against it because torture was ineffective. And saying that he did is a fallacious argument. The US continues to do it, because it is effective in some situations. Actually, if you reread the previous posts and links, particularly those posted by nerdgirl, you will find at least to sources claiming or logically implying that torture has yielded no useful information. Gen. Powell also didn't mention in his letter to McCain that the food in the White House is better than MRE's. Does that mean that MRE's are actually better than food served in the White House? That's the same logical process you have used. You've come to an illogical conclusion. Quote Never suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. The statistical evidence favors humane treatment. Some with experience claim no useful information has been obtained via torture. In lieu of a laboratory test in controlled conditions, we have to rely on the statistics. Quote Of course, did I state otherwise? I guess I'm going to have to ask you to clearly state your point. (That would be an appropriate use of bold type) Every time your apparent point is countered, you seem to claim that that wasn't your point. Quote Precisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. Why would we go from the more effective method to a lesser effective method, especially when the lesser effective method is illegal? As an aside, I recognize that some of our troops and/or agents have utilized torture, and I hope that they eventually stand before an international court for their crimes. Quote Please support this statement. Easy enough: Given: A = B Therefore when A != B, some A = C is not a logical conclusion. (Hint: A represents successful interrogation methods; B represents humane interrogation techniques, and C represents torture.) Quote Are you saying that we have NEVER gotten any usable information through torture? Naive statement if that's the case. I didn't say that. However, those with experience have claimed there is little to no value in torture. To paraphrase Gen. Moran, all of his interrogators that obtained useful information did so by being nice. I cannot say that torture has never provided useful information. What I can say is that, based on the evidence we have, the likelihood of success via torture is too low to make it a viable option, especially since it violates international law. It's like playing Lotto to ensure you retire wealthy. The probability of success are non-zero, but so close to zero as to be dismissed as zero.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #112 May 3, 2008 QuoteI haven't "avoided" answering anything...you ignore what I say, change my wording to try to make a valid argument and frankly, I don't play that game. You're basically recounting the failed US strategy already in evidence, in Iraq....same strategy we used in Vietnam and the same strategy the Russians used, against Afghanistan. As for greatness of generals or other leaders, it is purely opinion. R.E. Lee was a great leader, a great man and according to most, a great general. As far as I'm concerned, objectively speaking....he was a great leader but a lousy general. When he failed to match the tactics of his enemy, he basically wiped-out his own army. I love how you've chosen to not quote the relevant parts of my post so that you can completely misrepresent what I've written. It's even funnier how you accuse me of ignoring what you say, despite the fact that I addressed each of your points directly, with the relevant parts of your post quoted for context. Classic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #113 May 3, 2008 QuoteAgain, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). Actually, I have provided and continue to do so significant evidence. You tried to selectively cull one quote and I challenged you on it. If you don’t like it or disagree, that’s fine. One of those cool things about America ... & arguing on the internet. Doesn’t make your assertions accurate or defendable, altho’ I’ve asked twice now for some evidence to support your position. QuoteAnd to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Concur. If that was an accurate portrayal of the argument put forth. It isn't tho.' Let’s go back to post #1. I cited 4 reasons to oppose torture. The first was its ineffectiveness compared to non-torture based interrogation methods. The second was "it endangers US & allie [sic ... should have been "allied" - that was my mistake] uniformed service members with the risk of reciprocal treatment (or as GEN Colin Powell (ret) wrote in a letter to Sen McCain on redefining Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: weakening prohibitions on torture 'put our own troops at risk')". I thought I was clear that Gen Powell's letter was w/r/t the reciprocal treatment of uniformed service members/our POWs reason. I will try to be more clear in the future. No one has challenged argument #2 (unless I missed, which is entirely possible.) (The third & fourth reasons were “it's counterproductive w/r/t pursuit of US foreign policy goals, and it is wrong normatively.”) To specifically address the issue of GEN Colin Powell & ineffectiveness of torture as an interrogation methods, one example comes from his now-disavowed speech to the United Nations before the Iraq War. Information w/r/t Iraq training al Qa’eda representative in chemical and biological weapons obtained under torture (not while under US detainment) from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda leader, is now known to be non-factual (at the time CIA & DIA folks questioned the credibility). Gen Powell has challenged publically the usefulness of information obtained at Guantanamo, as well as making cases against torture on the other three arguments. (If I can argue more than one reason, should we not assume that he can as well?) In my initial response (post # 32) addressing of ineffectiveness of torture I intentionally cited military, intelligence community, and domestic LEO operators. To cite another source, who is more of the “scholar behind the desk,” Prof Alfred McCoy (History, U Wisconsin-Madison) in his book, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror, points out that there is little evidence that useful information is gleaned from torture and discusses one of the oft-cited anecdotes: “This scenario still rests on the critical, utterly unexamined assumption that torture can get useful intelligence quickly from this or any hardened terrorist. “Advocates of the ticking bomb often cite the brutal torture of Abdul Hakim Murad in Manila in 1995, which they say stopped a plot to blow up a dozen trans-Pacific aircraft and kill 4,000 innocent passengers. Except, of course, for the simple fact that Murad’s torture did nothing of the sort. Manila police got all their important information from Murad in the first few minutes when they seized his laptop with the entire bomb plot. All the supposed details gained from the sixty-seven days of incessant beatings, spiced by techniques like cigarettes to the genitals, were, as one Filipino officer testified in a New York court, fabrications fed to Murad by Philippine police. Conversely, he notes “There is, in fact, a well-established American alternative to torture that we might call empathetic interrogation. U.S. Marines first used this technique during World War II to extract accurate intelligence from fanatical Japanese captives on Saipan and Tinian within forty-eight hours of landing, and the FBI has practiced it with great success in the decades since. After the East Africa bombings of U.S. embassies, the bureau employed this method to gain some of our best intelligence on Al Qaeda and win U.S. court convictions of all of the accused.” That is, effective interrogation does not equal torture. Rather the data, the historical evidence, and the experts (scholarly, "desk warriors," and real warrior/warfighter types) assert torture is not effective. Thus far, as far as I can tell, your argument against that body of evidence has been that it’s an organized sustained & perpetuated scenario among all those folks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #114 May 3, 2008 Still seeking that relevance. Really, this could go on forever, as it all boils down to us basically agreeing to disagree. Believe me, I'm as humane as the next guy but there's a real world out there and sometimes, ya' just gotta' adapt. I've lived through most of the "modern conflicts"....old enough to remember most all of the Arab/Israeli conflicts, Vietnam, the Munich Massacre, the Achille Lauro, Grenada, etc. I served during Desert Storm, Panama (lost 5 friends in that one) and the first part of the Somalia fiasco. I also had several relatives who served in every war, from the American Civil War, to Vietnam. I have been a military history "enthusiast", for over 37 of my last 50 years...compiling an extensive text and video library on the subject. Meager qualifications, I agree but from what I've seen, heard, saw and felt over the course of all this, my general opinion is this... Wars should be entered into, with the intent of a quick, clear and decisive victory that, if at all possible...should be accomplished in one massive attack, with overwhelming firepower and the taking of no prisoners....i.e. a mushroom diet. The simultaneous nuking of Kabul, Baghdad, Damascus and all of Somalia (with whatever's left, dropped on Paris)...would pretty much eliminate terrorism, altogether. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #115 May 3, 2008 Quote Still seeking that relevance. That's because you keep snipping the relevance away when your point is countered or answering a question would expose the inconsistency of your logic. Quote Believe me, I'm as humane as the next guy but there's a real world out there and sometimes, ya' just gotta' adapt. It's clear from your views that you are not "as humane as the next guy". Quote I've lived through most of the "modern conflicts"....old enough to remember most all of the Arab/Israeli conflicts, Vietnam, the Munich Massacre, the Achille Lauro, Grenada, etc. I served during Desert Storm, Panama (lost 5 friends in that one) and the first part of the Somalia fiasco. I also had several relatives who served in every war, from the American Civil War, to Vietnam. I have been a military history "enthusiast", for over 37 of my last 50 years...compiling an extensive text and video library on the subject. Meager qualifications, I agree but from what I've seen, heard, saw and felt over the course of all this, my general opinion is this... It's unfortunate that you do not understand military leadership and strategy with such a history. Quote Wars should be entered into, with the intent of a quick, clear and decisive victory … Yes, I agree. Victory should come quickly and with a minimal loss of life on either side. Quote … should be accomplished in one massive attack, with overwhelming firepower and the taking of no prisoners....i.e. a mushroom diet. Here's where your strategy goes wrong. That would be a very bad idea, unless the goal is to motivate the rest of the world the rise up and extinguish us. Personally I don't find that to be a desirable political end state. Quote The simultaneous nuking of Kabul, Baghdad, Damascus and all of Somalia (with whatever's left, dropped on Paris)...would pretty much eliminate terrorism, altogether. We could drop a fey nukes on NYC to take care of their jaywalking problem, too, huh? Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #116 May 4, 2008 All of your posts seem to be relying on the assumption that cruelty is always more effective in the "real world." This is a false assumption. It doesn't matter whether we have a "right" to torture the nasty terrorists or not. If it turns out that in reality, torture simply DOES NOT WORK, then the moral issue becomes a moot point. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #117 May 4, 2008 Quote We could drop a fey nukes on NYC to take care of their jaywalking problem, too, huh? I have no doubt, that would seriously curtail....if not solve the problem. Judging from the recent antics of the NYPD, I'm a bit surprised they haven't already tried it. Quote Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general. Well, that's ok...it puts me in line with other military "failures", like George S. Patton and Norman Schwartzkopf."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #118 May 4, 2008 How were those guys failures or naive about the world? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #119 May 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general. Well, that's ok...it puts me in line with other military "failures", like George S. Patton and Norman Schwartzkopf. I see little similarity in your proposed strategies and those implemented by either Gen. Patton or Gen. Schwartzkopf. Specifically, Nuclear bombs were not dropped on Iraq during Desert Storm, and POW's were treated humanely.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites thirdworld19 0 #120 May 4, 2008 QuoteAll of your posts seem to be relying on the assumption that cruelty is always more effective in the "real world." This is a false assumption. It doesn't matter whether we have a "right" to torture the nasty terrorists or not. If it turns out that in reality, torture simply DOES NOT WORK, then the moral issue becomes a moot point. Wouldn't the morality of something take the front seat over it's effectiveness? Does the end justify the means? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites thirdworld19 0 #121 May 4, 2008 QuoteAgain, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. So why are you arguing so vehemently with those who also claim the opposite? Actually, if you reread the previous posts and links, particularly those posted by nerdgirl, you will find at least to sources claiming or logically implying that torture has yielded no useful information. QuoteNever suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. The statistical evidence favors humane treatment. Some with experience claim no useful information has been obtained via torture. In lieu of a laboratory test in controlled conditions, we have to rely on the statistics. QuotePrecisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. Why would we go from the more effective method to a lesser effective method, especially when the lesser effective method is illegal? I am not arguing so vehemently against all those... What I am saying is that the experts who claim torture is ineffective may have other reasons to state that it is ineffective. I noticed that your post is slipping from torture being ineffective to torture being either less effective or that statistical evidence favors more humane methods. Torture has been effective and continues to be so - search the internet just like you did to support its ineffectiveness. It is one of the tools in the toolbox available to those who need it. Personally, I believe it should be a last resort in certain cases (not all). Other methods fail as well, but we continue to use them. How many times has simple questioning failed to provide any confessions or useful information? If it's as easy as "statistical evidence favors humane treatment," please give me a reference to something that shows the statistics of how much we get from simple questioning versus torture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #102 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteLet me try to make this understandable. The US has a policy of no torturing. They (the infamous 'they') must live a public life as if this is true - no torture. However, 'everyone knows' that we do torture - or send people to countries to do this for them. So we are saying one thing and doing another. I haven't heard that denied in this thread. That 1st paragraph was background - no need to reply. Please read entire post first and reply to the point of the post, not each individual word. QuoteNow, to try to bolster our public image of 'no torture' (because everyone knows we do it) we have various experts state that it is ineffective. (As a side note, have these experts actually tortured people - is this first hand experience that they are basing their opinions on?) If torture is ineffective, why would we do it? Of course we don't. It's bad and it doesn't work anyway. (Kind of sad that this is the reason for not doing it.) The information that is put out there to support this policy of no torture is propaganda. Again, did Condi lie when she spoke of rendition flights, or did she just have no clue that we do that? So you really believe it bolsters our image to torture despite claiming ing that torture is not effective? That doesn't make any sense. It hurts our image. Again, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. QuoteWhy do we torture people? Why has it been done over hundreds of years - and why do we continue to do it? Good question. Maybe the government hires, as interrogators, a bunch of sick fucks who get their kicks on hurting people. Or, maybe because it is effective in some circumstances. The information we have indicates that the latter is not the case. Again, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). And to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Don't people read those!?! Powell wrote: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." The letter did not say he was against it because torture was ineffective. And saying that he did is a fallacious argument. The US continues to do it, because it is effective in some situations. QuoteAs the Intelligence Science Board report states, maybe we just need some empirical evidence to prove it one way or the other. Good luck finding volunteers for that experiment. Would you like to be one of the subjects that gets tortured? I bet they can get you to confess to killing Kennedy. Or Lincoln. Never suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. QuoteI don't doubt that many think that being humane works better than torture. Including those with actual interrogation experience. Of course, did I state otherwise? QuoteI would think that those people didn't start off the interrogation with torture though. They probably started nice and got what they wanted - so no need to revert to torture. Why would they when experience has shown humane treatment works better? Precisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. QuoteIt's the stubborn enemy, when the humane way didn't work, who ends up with torture. Just because the humane way works better for some, or most, doesn't make torture ineffective. True, but there is no indication that torture will work for the hypothetical ten percent of people who offer no information when treated humanely, either. Please support this statement. Are you saying that we have NEVER gotten any usable information through torture? Naive statement if that's the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #103 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants. The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules. Why "obliged"? We didn't have to play by the same rules to beat Germany and Japan. And we're a much stronger country because of that. Actually, we were losing our a*s...until we adopted the tactics of the Germans and Japanese. There was a point, when our soldiers stopped taking prisoners, we shot Japanese and German sailors in the water and shot Japanese pilots, under their parachutes....just like they had done to us. The US daytime bombing practice was more accurate but had little effect, since it was directed mostly at hardened military targets. The British practice of night-time "area bombing", was directed at the civilian population and had greater effect."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #104 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants. The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules. Why "obliged"? We didn't have to play by the same rules to beat Germany and Japan. And we're a much stronger country because of that. Actually, we were losing our a*s...until we adopted the tactics of the Germans and Japanese. There was a point, when our soldiers stopped taking prisoners, we shot Japanese and German sailors in the water and shot Japanese pilots, under their parachutes....just like they had done to us. The US daytime bombing practice was more accurate but had little effect, since it was directed mostly at hardened military targets. The British practice of night-time "area bombing", was directed at the civilian population and had greater effect. Right. But we did not adopt their torture methods, which is what this thread is about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #105 May 3, 2008 I haven't "avoided" answering anything...you ignore what I say, change my wording to try to make a valid argument and frankly, I don't play that game. You're basically recounting the failed US strategy already in evidence, in Iraq....same strategy we used in Vietnam and the same strategy the Russians used, against Afghanistan. As for greatness of generals or other leaders, it is purely opinion. R.E. Lee was a great leader, a great man and according to most, a great general. As far as I'm concerned, objectively speaking....he was a great leader but a lousy general. When he failed to match the tactics of his enemy, he basically wiped-out his own army."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #106 May 3, 2008 Quote Right. But we did not adopt their torture methods, which is what this thread is about. No, we haven't...but some are asserting that we are "approaching" their torture methods, by the alleged use of "waterboarding". I am simply saying that we have every right, to adopt their methods...across the board, both in battle and in the treatment of prisoners."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #107 May 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Right. But we did not adopt their torture methods, which is what this thread is about. No, we haven't...but some are asserting that we are "approaching" their torture methods, by the alleged use of "waterboarding". I am simply saying that we have every right, to adopt their methods...across the board, both in battle and in the treatment of prisoners. And my position is whether we have the right or not, we are a better country if we don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #108 May 3, 2008 QuoteIt was 'culled' from the summary of the entire report. This was the bottom line of the report. Now to take other excerpts from the report that don't represent the spirit of the report and twist them to fit your argument would be culling - IMHO. You are misrepresenting both the report’s impetus, which I tried to explain to you, and the report’s findings. Primary data. (1) There is no "summary." There are acknowledgements, a forward, a prologue, introduction, commentaries (one of which I cited), and 11 scientific papers. There isn’t an Executive Summary or even a conclusions section. (2) The quote you pulled is from Otis’ commentary (p. xix). The same author who stated, explicitly: “(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that 'educing' information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable." (3) You are correct about at least one thing: conducting scientific-based research (repeatable, systematic, public/open) on the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation method in the US is very difficult or impossible to do. Imagine trying to get that approved through Internal Review Board (IRB)? That is largely to what Otis’ (culled) comment refers. This is analogous to research & FDA approval process on new therapeutics for smallpox and nerve agents. Just like researchers are prohibited from torturing research subjects as part of an investigatory program, researchers are also prohibited from intentionally infecting a research subject with smallpox or exposing them to lethal doses of sarin or VX. In the quote you culled the precise term “scientific research” is used. Regimes that have done the kind of controlled “scientific research” on human responses to torture are, again, not ones that I would advocate the US emulate. Would you? (I assume not, but making assumptions is rarely safe in SC). The quote, which references Chapter 5 & 6 in the report, does not refer to historical accounts, historical analysis, lessons learned, scientific research on methods that are legally permissive, or the body of evidence, briefly highlighted in post #32. I will always agree that more research is beneficial - that largely reflects my inclinations - whether sub-atomic physics, nanobiotechnology, cybersecurity, or ancient Sumerian history. (4) Chapter 5 refers to a historical case, CIA’s KUBARK manual, which included some “enhanced interrogation” methods, a la “Jack Bauer & 24.” Here’s the abstract from Chapter 5 (p. 95), which I echoes the excerpts I previously cited: “ A careful reading of the KUBARK manual is essential for anyone involved in interrogation, if perhaps for no other reason than to uncover a definition of interrogation that accurately captures the fundamental nature of interrogation while also concretely establishing what it is not (i.e., a game between two people to be won or lost). A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation, and especially to the conduct of interrogation in field operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the discipline. Most observers, even those within professional circles, have unfortunately been influenced by the media’s colorful (and artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of force – be it physical or psychological – by the interrogator against the hapless, often slow-witted subject. This false assumption is belied by historic trends that show the majority of sources (some estimates range as high as 90 percent) have provided meaningful answers to pertinent questions in response to direct questioning (i.e., questions posed in an essentially administrative manner rather than in concert with an orchestrated approach designed to weaken the source’s resistance). The chapter goes on to note: “In an emphatic article, Alfred W. McCoy provides a sweeping review of the development of the KUBARK manual and its disturbing legacy throughout the remaining course of Cold War history. McCoy makes a compelling argument that coercive interrogation methods, such as those set forth in the KUBARK manual, carry a far-reaching negative impact on U.S. foreign policy: a premise with critical implications for current counterinsurgency operations in Iraq.”Also is Chapter 5: “The devaluation of rapport — that is, building an operational accord [italics in original] with a source — as an effective means of gaining compliance from a resistant source is in large measure the product of the misguided public debate over the role of interrogation in the Global War on Terror, one that seems invariably to focus on the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario..” … “A likely factor driving the progressive ‘dumbing down’ of interrogation and interrogation training in the United States has been the ubiquitous treatment of the craft in movies and Hollywood. Viewers are treated to endless examples of the calculating, quick-witted interrogator who can rapidly assess the vulnerabilities of the source/prisoner and instantaneously devise and orchestrate an approach that almost immediately leverages compliance. Of course, what the viewer does not see (or, therefore, remember) is that these five-minute long vignettes are carefully scripted and repeatedly rehearsed. The actors do not deal with a constant chain of unknowns, nor are they asked to remain joined in the intense interpersonal exchange for hours, perhaps days, on end. It is critical that this artificial and often unrealistic view of interrogation not be allowed to influence doctrine for the real world.” The Chapter goes through in detail what has been shown to work from KUBARK and what resembles “Jack Bauer”-style visions of the real world. It also makes some provocative comments w/r/t how directly SERE training transfers to HUMINT and interrogations (or doesn’t). (5) Chapter 6 is half literature review of psychological methods (no torture) and half review of domestic law enforcement (including FBI) SOPs and case studies, including ones from domestic law enforcement in Britain and one from Northern Ireland. (6) By the thinking you are proposing applying to the ISB report the “9-11 Commission Report” is to be interpreted as suggesting the US pursue al Qa’eda-style training & tactics. In the report’s preface (intentionally misconstruing here to be illustrative) it does say “We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal.” (Now, of course, the 9-11 Commissioners aren’t praising al Qa’eda for those traits or advocating the US adopt al Qa'eda tactics.) Again, since you are advocating that torture as part of interrogation is effective, the onus now goes to you to provide some evidence of that. All in all – thanks for getting me to revisit the ISB report. I love diving deep into a text. Also helped further strengthen the argument against the use of torture as part of interrogation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #109 May 3, 2008 QuoteYou're basically recounting the failed US strategy already in evidence, in Iraq....same strategy we used in Vietnam and the same strategy the Russians used, against Afghanistan. Ignoring the issue (huge on its own) of what part & when US strategy "failed" in Iraq, the only or best alternative to traditional state-on-state or peer-competitor military operations is not catastrophic anhiliation. Especially 5 years after an invasion. Another option, probably more effective (need another thread), is counterinsurgency strategy, i.e., the kind espoused by LTC John Nagl (USA), GEN David Petraeus (USA), LTG John Amos (USMC), and Prof Sarah Sewell (among others), to enable security, stability, transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) operations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #110 May 3, 2008 Quote And my position is whether we have the right or not, we are a better country if we don't. I totally agree, on principle but unfortunately, times have changed, the nature of warfare has changed and militarily speaking...you can't put a kitten, up against a badger. As I said in the beginning...taking no prisoners, is the best course of action....nobody gets "mistreated" and everybody's happy. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #111 May 3, 2008 Quote That 1st paragraph was background - no need to reply. Please read entire post first and reply to the point of the post, not each individual word. It's bad form to tell people how to respond, especially when you do so without using proper markup. Quote Again, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. So why are you arguing so vehemently with those who also claim the opposite? Quote Again, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). And to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Don't people read those!?! Powell wrote: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." The letter did not say he was against it because torture was ineffective. And saying that he did is a fallacious argument. The US continues to do it, because it is effective in some situations. Actually, if you reread the previous posts and links, particularly those posted by nerdgirl, you will find at least to sources claiming or logically implying that torture has yielded no useful information. Gen. Powell also didn't mention in his letter to McCain that the food in the White House is better than MRE's. Does that mean that MRE's are actually better than food served in the White House? That's the same logical process you have used. You've come to an illogical conclusion. Quote Never suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. The statistical evidence favors humane treatment. Some with experience claim no useful information has been obtained via torture. In lieu of a laboratory test in controlled conditions, we have to rely on the statistics. Quote Of course, did I state otherwise? I guess I'm going to have to ask you to clearly state your point. (That would be an appropriate use of bold type) Every time your apparent point is countered, you seem to claim that that wasn't your point. Quote Precisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. Why would we go from the more effective method to a lesser effective method, especially when the lesser effective method is illegal? As an aside, I recognize that some of our troops and/or agents have utilized torture, and I hope that they eventually stand before an international court for their crimes. Quote Please support this statement. Easy enough: Given: A = B Therefore when A != B, some A = C is not a logical conclusion. (Hint: A represents successful interrogation methods; B represents humane interrogation techniques, and C represents torture.) Quote Are you saying that we have NEVER gotten any usable information through torture? Naive statement if that's the case. I didn't say that. However, those with experience have claimed there is little to no value in torture. To paraphrase Gen. Moran, all of his interrogators that obtained useful information did so by being nice. I cannot say that torture has never provided useful information. What I can say is that, based on the evidence we have, the likelihood of success via torture is too low to make it a viable option, especially since it violates international law. It's like playing Lotto to ensure you retire wealthy. The probability of success are non-zero, but so close to zero as to be dismissed as zero.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #112 May 3, 2008 QuoteI haven't "avoided" answering anything...you ignore what I say, change my wording to try to make a valid argument and frankly, I don't play that game. You're basically recounting the failed US strategy already in evidence, in Iraq....same strategy we used in Vietnam and the same strategy the Russians used, against Afghanistan. As for greatness of generals or other leaders, it is purely opinion. R.E. Lee was a great leader, a great man and according to most, a great general. As far as I'm concerned, objectively speaking....he was a great leader but a lousy general. When he failed to match the tactics of his enemy, he basically wiped-out his own army. I love how you've chosen to not quote the relevant parts of my post so that you can completely misrepresent what I've written. It's even funnier how you accuse me of ignoring what you say, despite the fact that I addressed each of your points directly, with the relevant parts of your post quoted for context. Classic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #113 May 3, 2008 QuoteAgain, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). Actually, I have provided and continue to do so significant evidence. You tried to selectively cull one quote and I challenged you on it. If you don’t like it or disagree, that’s fine. One of those cool things about America ... & arguing on the internet. Doesn’t make your assertions accurate or defendable, altho’ I’ve asked twice now for some evidence to support your position. QuoteAnd to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Concur. If that was an accurate portrayal of the argument put forth. It isn't tho.' Let’s go back to post #1. I cited 4 reasons to oppose torture. The first was its ineffectiveness compared to non-torture based interrogation methods. The second was "it endangers US & allie [sic ... should have been "allied" - that was my mistake] uniformed service members with the risk of reciprocal treatment (or as GEN Colin Powell (ret) wrote in a letter to Sen McCain on redefining Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: weakening prohibitions on torture 'put our own troops at risk')". I thought I was clear that Gen Powell's letter was w/r/t the reciprocal treatment of uniformed service members/our POWs reason. I will try to be more clear in the future. No one has challenged argument #2 (unless I missed, which is entirely possible.) (The third & fourth reasons were “it's counterproductive w/r/t pursuit of US foreign policy goals, and it is wrong normatively.”) To specifically address the issue of GEN Colin Powell & ineffectiveness of torture as an interrogation methods, one example comes from his now-disavowed speech to the United Nations before the Iraq War. Information w/r/t Iraq training al Qa’eda representative in chemical and biological weapons obtained under torture (not while under US detainment) from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda leader, is now known to be non-factual (at the time CIA & DIA folks questioned the credibility). Gen Powell has challenged publically the usefulness of information obtained at Guantanamo, as well as making cases against torture on the other three arguments. (If I can argue more than one reason, should we not assume that he can as well?) In my initial response (post # 32) addressing of ineffectiveness of torture I intentionally cited military, intelligence community, and domestic LEO operators. To cite another source, who is more of the “scholar behind the desk,” Prof Alfred McCoy (History, U Wisconsin-Madison) in his book, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror, points out that there is little evidence that useful information is gleaned from torture and discusses one of the oft-cited anecdotes: “This scenario still rests on the critical, utterly unexamined assumption that torture can get useful intelligence quickly from this or any hardened terrorist. “Advocates of the ticking bomb often cite the brutal torture of Abdul Hakim Murad in Manila in 1995, which they say stopped a plot to blow up a dozen trans-Pacific aircraft and kill 4,000 innocent passengers. Except, of course, for the simple fact that Murad’s torture did nothing of the sort. Manila police got all their important information from Murad in the first few minutes when they seized his laptop with the entire bomb plot. All the supposed details gained from the sixty-seven days of incessant beatings, spiced by techniques like cigarettes to the genitals, were, as one Filipino officer testified in a New York court, fabrications fed to Murad by Philippine police. Conversely, he notes “There is, in fact, a well-established American alternative to torture that we might call empathetic interrogation. U.S. Marines first used this technique during World War II to extract accurate intelligence from fanatical Japanese captives on Saipan and Tinian within forty-eight hours of landing, and the FBI has practiced it with great success in the decades since. After the East Africa bombings of U.S. embassies, the bureau employed this method to gain some of our best intelligence on Al Qaeda and win U.S. court convictions of all of the accused.” That is, effective interrogation does not equal torture. Rather the data, the historical evidence, and the experts (scholarly, "desk warriors," and real warrior/warfighter types) assert torture is not effective. Thus far, as far as I can tell, your argument against that body of evidence has been that it’s an organized sustained & perpetuated scenario among all those folks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #114 May 3, 2008 Still seeking that relevance. Really, this could go on forever, as it all boils down to us basically agreeing to disagree. Believe me, I'm as humane as the next guy but there's a real world out there and sometimes, ya' just gotta' adapt. I've lived through most of the "modern conflicts"....old enough to remember most all of the Arab/Israeli conflicts, Vietnam, the Munich Massacre, the Achille Lauro, Grenada, etc. I served during Desert Storm, Panama (lost 5 friends in that one) and the first part of the Somalia fiasco. I also had several relatives who served in every war, from the American Civil War, to Vietnam. I have been a military history "enthusiast", for over 37 of my last 50 years...compiling an extensive text and video library on the subject. Meager qualifications, I agree but from what I've seen, heard, saw and felt over the course of all this, my general opinion is this... Wars should be entered into, with the intent of a quick, clear and decisive victory that, if at all possible...should be accomplished in one massive attack, with overwhelming firepower and the taking of no prisoners....i.e. a mushroom diet. The simultaneous nuking of Kabul, Baghdad, Damascus and all of Somalia (with whatever's left, dropped on Paris)...would pretty much eliminate terrorism, altogether. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #115 May 3, 2008 Quote Still seeking that relevance. That's because you keep snipping the relevance away when your point is countered or answering a question would expose the inconsistency of your logic. Quote Believe me, I'm as humane as the next guy but there's a real world out there and sometimes, ya' just gotta' adapt. It's clear from your views that you are not "as humane as the next guy". Quote I've lived through most of the "modern conflicts"....old enough to remember most all of the Arab/Israeli conflicts, Vietnam, the Munich Massacre, the Achille Lauro, Grenada, etc. I served during Desert Storm, Panama (lost 5 friends in that one) and the first part of the Somalia fiasco. I also had several relatives who served in every war, from the American Civil War, to Vietnam. I have been a military history "enthusiast", for over 37 of my last 50 years...compiling an extensive text and video library on the subject. Meager qualifications, I agree but from what I've seen, heard, saw and felt over the course of all this, my general opinion is this... It's unfortunate that you do not understand military leadership and strategy with such a history. Quote Wars should be entered into, with the intent of a quick, clear and decisive victory … Yes, I agree. Victory should come quickly and with a minimal loss of life on either side. Quote … should be accomplished in one massive attack, with overwhelming firepower and the taking of no prisoners....i.e. a mushroom diet. Here's where your strategy goes wrong. That would be a very bad idea, unless the goal is to motivate the rest of the world the rise up and extinguish us. Personally I don't find that to be a desirable political end state. Quote The simultaneous nuking of Kabul, Baghdad, Damascus and all of Somalia (with whatever's left, dropped on Paris)...would pretty much eliminate terrorism, altogether. We could drop a fey nukes on NYC to take care of their jaywalking problem, too, huh? Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #116 May 4, 2008 All of your posts seem to be relying on the assumption that cruelty is always more effective in the "real world." This is a false assumption. It doesn't matter whether we have a "right" to torture the nasty terrorists or not. If it turns out that in reality, torture simply DOES NOT WORK, then the moral issue becomes a moot point. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #117 May 4, 2008 Quote We could drop a fey nukes on NYC to take care of their jaywalking problem, too, huh? I have no doubt, that would seriously curtail....if not solve the problem. Judging from the recent antics of the NYPD, I'm a bit surprised they haven't already tried it. Quote Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general. Well, that's ok...it puts me in line with other military "failures", like George S. Patton and Norman Schwartzkopf."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #118 May 4, 2008 How were those guys failures or naive about the world? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #119 May 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Your strategy is not only doomed to failure, but also demonstrates extreme naivety about the world in general. Well, that's ok...it puts me in line with other military "failures", like George S. Patton and Norman Schwartzkopf. I see little similarity in your proposed strategies and those implemented by either Gen. Patton or Gen. Schwartzkopf. Specifically, Nuclear bombs were not dropped on Iraq during Desert Storm, and POW's were treated humanely.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #120 May 4, 2008 QuoteAll of your posts seem to be relying on the assumption that cruelty is always more effective in the "real world." This is a false assumption. It doesn't matter whether we have a "right" to torture the nasty terrorists or not. If it turns out that in reality, torture simply DOES NOT WORK, then the moral issue becomes a moot point. Wouldn't the morality of something take the front seat over it's effectiveness? Does the end justify the means? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #121 May 4, 2008 QuoteAgain, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. So why are you arguing so vehemently with those who also claim the opposite? Actually, if you reread the previous posts and links, particularly those posted by nerdgirl, you will find at least to sources claiming or logically implying that torture has yielded no useful information. QuoteNever suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. The statistical evidence favors humane treatment. Some with experience claim no useful information has been obtained via torture. In lieu of a laboratory test in controlled conditions, we have to rely on the statistics. QuotePrecisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. Why would we go from the more effective method to a lesser effective method, especially when the lesser effective method is illegal? I am not arguing so vehemently against all those... What I am saying is that the experts who claim torture is ineffective may have other reasons to state that it is ineffective. I noticed that your post is slipping from torture being ineffective to torture being either less effective or that statistical evidence favors more humane methods. Torture has been effective and continues to be so - search the internet just like you did to support its ineffectiveness. It is one of the tools in the toolbox available to those who need it. Personally, I believe it should be a last resort in certain cases (not all). Other methods fail as well, but we continue to use them. How many times has simple questioning failed to provide any confessions or useful information? If it's as easy as "statistical evidence favors humane treatment," please give me a reference to something that shows the statistics of how much we get from simple questioning versus torture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #122 May 4, 2008 QuoteI am not arguing so vehemently against all those... What I am saying is that the experts who claim torture is ineffective may have other reasons to state that it is ineffective. Your theory that the claims are made as propaganda is not reasonable. Too many of those making claims of torture being ineffective are making those claims due to their dismay of the use of torture by the US and their contractors. QuoteI noticed that your post is slipping from torture being ineffective to torture being either less effective or that statistical evidence favors more humane methods. Yes, due strictly to your semantics based counter arguments. QuoteTorture has been effective and continues to be so - search the internet just like you did to support its ineffectiveness. Have you any links to support that assertion? I've never seen any evidence of that being true. If you're so confident, I'm sure you can search the internet to find experienced interrogators with numerous success stories of obtaining reliable information under torture. In light of the numerous links to credible sources regarding the effectiveness of different interrogation methods thus far presented in this thread, why haven't you produced them already? QuoteIt is one of the tools in the toolbox available to those who need it. There might be a pin cushion in a mechanic's toolbox, but that doesn't make it useful for anything. QuotePersonally, I believe it should be a last resort in certain cases (not all). The experts disagree with you. What makes you think you know more about interrogation than those who have many years of experience. QuoteOther methods fail as well, but we continue to use them. But those methods have a high success rate (Up to 90%, according to one of the sources). Why would we abandon them simply because the success rate is not 100%? QuoteHow many times has simple questioning failed to provide any confessions or useful information? I haven't been keeping track, but I'm sure it has occurred many, many times. That in no way means that torture would work in such cases. QuoteIf it's as easy as "statistical evidence favors humane treatment," please give me a reference to something that shows the statistics of how much we get from simple questioning versus torture. Have you not read any of the links that have been thus far provided? Here's a few from nerdgirl's posts (reposted w/o her permission): … torture -- by hands American or foreign -- is rarely ever useful or necessary. …despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them. The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted … The abusers couldn't even use the old 'ends justify the means' argument, because in the end there was nothing to show but a tremendous propaganda defeat for the United States. … the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. If you are looking for a source that clearly states "Of x interrogations that did not involve torture, y resulted in obtaining accurate information from the detainee. Of n interrogations that involved torture, z resulted in obtaining accurate information from the detainee.", good luck finding it. I seriously doubt such a document exists, regardless of its conclusions. The closest you are likely to come is the US Army Field Manual, quoted above, as its conclusions are most likely based on statistical evidence. On the other hand, if you examine the opinions of experienced, professional interrogators, their informed opinions appear to consistently favor humane treatment as the overwhelmingly more effective method.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #123 May 5, 2008 QuoteYour theory that the claims are made as propaganda is not reasonable. Too many of those making claims of torture being ineffective are making those claims due to their dismay of the use of torture by the US and their contractors. Why is it not reasonable? The government hasn't done anything like this in the past? I think we agreed in a previous post that this is definitely up the gov'ts alley. That's what they do. Just because some people don't like torture, does not make it ineffective. QuoteHave you any links to support that assertion? I've never seen any evidence of that being true. If you're so confident, I'm sure you can search the internet to find experienced interrogators with numerous success stories of obtaining reliable information under torture. In light of the numerous links to credible sources regarding the effectiveness of different interrogation methods thus far presented in this thread, why haven't you produced them already? If you haven't seen evidence, it's because you haven't looked. I spent 10 minutes Googling and found several links. The US was very successful breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Enhanced interrogation techniques also worked with Abu Zubaydah. There are many within the CIA who state that ehanced interrogation methods are effective - these are the people actually using the techniques. Even Aristotle thought that torture could be effective in certain circumstances. So who's right? Or will you try to downplay these success stories? I have no doubt that torture doesn't work on everyone, but that doesn't make it ineffective. QuoteThere might be a pin cushion in a mechanic's toolbox, but that doesn't make it useful for anything. Now that is just ridiculous. QuotePersonally, I believe.... The experts disagree with you. What makes you think you know more about interrogation than those who have many years of experience. But many experts also agree with me. I think I'll stick with them. QuoteBut those methods have a high success rate (Up to 90%, according to one of the sources). Why would we abandon them simply because the success rate is not 100%? Please point to the specific reference to the 90% effective rate. And that would be using which technique? I'm also not suggesting we abandon them - not sure where you got that from. I'm saying that just because a technique does not work 100% of the time does not mean we should throw it out - and it seems you agree with that. QuoteHow many times has simple questioning failed to provide any confessions or useful information? I haven't been keeping track, but I'm sure it has occurred many, many times. That in no way means that torture would work in such cases. Do you know that it wouldn't? QuoteHave you not read any of the links that have been thus far provided? Here's a few from nerdgirl's posts (reposted w/o her permission): A couple of anecdotes/opinions does not make for statistical evidence (and 'most likely based on statistical evidence' doesn't rise to the level of statistical evidence either). As an aside (since you referenced it), do you really believe the whole Abu Graib thing was done to illicit information, or just for the entertainment of a few sick people? Quote...their informed opinions appear to consistently favor humane treatment as the overwhelmingly more effective method. Informed opinion also points to the effectiveness of torture in certain cases as well. Again, to 'consistently favor humane treatment' does not render torture ineffective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #124 May 5, 2008 QuoteWhy is it not reasonable? The government hasn't done anything like this in the past? I think we agreed in a previous post that this is definitely up the gov'ts alley. That's what they do. Just because some people don't like torture, does not make it ineffective. Please support your assertion with evidence. QuoteIf you haven't seen evidence, it's because you haven't looked. I spent 10 minutes Googling and found several links. The US was very successful breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Enhanced interrogation techniques also worked with Abu Zubaydah. There are many within the CIA who state that ehanced interrogation methods are effective - these are the people actually using the techniques. Even Aristotle thought that torture could be effective in certain circumstances. So who's right? Or will you try to downplay these success stories? I have no doubt that torture doesn't work on everyone, but that doesn't make it ineffective. Feel free to provide links, especially if such evidence is so easy to find. QuoteNow that is just ridiculous. No more ridiculous than your assertions. QuoteBut many experts also agree with me. I think I'll stick with them. If they agree with you, provide links. So far you've provided zero evidence. QuotePlease point to the specific reference to the 90% effective rate. And that would be using which technique? I'm also not suggesting we abandon them - not sure where you got that from. Please read the links provided. Frankly, I'm tired of going back through them and doing your homework for you. Your post that I replied to asked why we use the techniques if they are not 100% effective (paraphrased). QuoteI'm saying that just because a technique does not work 100% of the time does not mean we should throw it out - and it seems you agree with that. I agree. However, thus far we have seen zero evidence that torture is effective. Zero. Only your claims that it must work. QuoteDo you know that it wouldn't? I know that, based on the evidence, the probability is very low. I also don't know that I won't win the jackpot if I buy a Lotto ticket, but that doesn't mean I should buy one. QuoteA couple of anecdotes/opinions does not make for statistical evidence (and 'most likely based on statistical evidence' doesn't rise to the level of statistical evidence either). As an aside (since you referenced it), do you really believe the whole Abu Graib thing was done to illicit information, or just for the entertainment of a few sick people? You're apparently looking for statistical evidence that is not available at all, regardless of what it indicates. QuoteInformed opinion also points to the effectiveness of torture in certain cases as well. Again, provide evidence to support your assertion. QuoteAgain, to 'consistently favor humane treatment' does not render torture ineffective. We've seen zero evidence to indicate that torture is effective. Zero. Feel free to provide some if you believe torture can be effective.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #125 May 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf you haven't seen evidence, it's because you haven't looked. I spent 10 minutes Googling and found several links. The US was very successful breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Enhanced interrogation techniques also worked with Abu Zubaydah. There are many within the CIA who state that ehanced interrogation methods are effective - these are the people actually using the techniques. Even Aristotle thought that torture could be effective in certain circumstances. So who's right? Or will you try to downplay these success stories? I have no doubt that torture doesn't work on everyone, but that doesn't make it ineffective. Just Google the couple of names I gave you and you'll find the evidence. Real quick if you really want to know - or you can willingly turn a blind eye to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
