Darius11 12 #76 May 15, 2009 Quote Just to make sure everyone knows, I am not trying to put anyone down, I like debate, its all in good nature for me-Evo You mean i can stop cutting my self now?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #77 May 15, 2009 QuoteWhy would we have a training program in place to employ resistance in troops if we knew torture didnt work? It depends on what you mean by work. If, by works, you mean that torture provides accurate, actionable intelligence to interrogators, then no, it doesn't work. If, by works you mean that torture makes it easy to obtain false confessions, then yes, torture works quite well. It is as important for our captured soldiers to avoid making false confessions as it is for them to avoid giving out legitimate intelligence when interrogated. The Cold War had a large propaganda component, so false confessions could be quite harmful. QuoteI refuse to believe that torture does not work, honestly its naive to say it doesn't. It is not naïve to listen to the wisdom of experience interrogators. They are the experts claiming torture is not an effective means of interrogation. It is naïve to believe those experienced interrogators don't know what they're talking about. QuoteLet me ask you this, if torture, specifically water boarding worked, and you knew it, would you still be against it? Yes. It is illegal; it violates international law, and it violates the Constitution. Since torture, including water boarding, is known to not be nearly as effective as traditional, humane interrogation techniques, there's no reason to even attempt to justify its use. QuoteI personally would rather receive wrong coordinates for an IED than none at all … That would be a foolish attitude for a real military leader have. Having no intel is better than only having bad intel. With no intel, at least the military leader is aware that nothing is known. With bad intel, even that knowledge isn't available, so, effectively, even less is known.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Will_Evo 0 #78 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhy would we have a training program in place to employ resistance in troops if we knew torture didnt work? 1.It depends on what you mean by work. If, by works, you mean that torture provides accurate, actionable intelligence to interrogators, then no, it doesn't work. If, by works you mean that torture makes it easy to obtain false confessions, then yes, torture works quite well. It is as important for our captured soldiers to avoid making false confessions as it is for them to avoid giving out legitimate intelligence when interrogated. The Cold War had a large propaganda component, so false confessions could be quite harmful. QuoteI refuse to believe that torture does not work, honestly its naive to say it doesn't. 2.It is not naïve to listen to the wisdom of experience interrogators. They are the experts claiming torture is not an effective means of interrogation. It is naïve to believe those experienced interrogators don't know what they're talking about. QuoteLet me ask you this, if torture, specifically water boarding worked, and you knew it, would you still be against it? 3.Yes. It is illegal; it violates international law, and it violates the Constitution. Since torture, including water boarding, is known to not be nearly as effective as traditional, humane interrogation techniques, there's no reason to even attempt to justify its use. QuoteI personally would rather receive wrong coordinates for an IED than none at all … 4.That would be a foolish attitude for a real military leader have. Having no intel is better than only having bad intel. With no intel, at least the military leader is aware that nothing is known. With bad intel, even that knowledge isn't available, so, effectively, even less is known. 1. You seem to be avoiding the obvious here. So you really and truly believe that we have SERE training in place, because we "know" torture doesn't work, but we dont want false intel or real intel given to the enemy when one of our soldiers is being tortured. Your reaching for the stars on your explanation. Resistance is just what it says, and wouldn't exist if we had no fear of intel being released. 2.&3. So I will couple response 2 and 3 into one explanation. So, if you knew waterboarding worked, you would still be against it. So then I ask you this, what does a major political and or military public figure gain if he admits to conducting torture, but that it works? He has nothing to gain, it would make more sense, on a major political level, for said person to use his power to avoid the subject, or to use tools at his disposal such as an "Expert" saying that torture doesn't work. Even though having an "Expert" commenting on such a subject is completely hypocritical its sickening. How can you have an expert analysis unless the expert has been conducting torture? A major political figure knows how to cover things up, and nothing does that better than speaking out against the exact thing your hiding. Presidents do it all the time, watch the next election. 4. No, you have that absolutely backwards. How does a military leader know what intel is bad or good? He has no choice but to treat any liable intel as good intel until its proven wrong, the lives of his soldiers depends on it. The FBI takes thousands of calls a day, but not a single one isn't recorded and cataloged. We dont take calls saying a building will be blown up, and brush it off because we dont THINK its reliable, we take it with all seriousness until proven wrong. -EvoZoo Crew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #79 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuote I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -Evo The FACT (from many studies quoted by Marg) that torture is ineffective and has a tendency to produce "bad intel" is irrelevant to you, then? You DO realize that the techniques we use in SERE training were designed to get FALSE confessions (propaganda) from our people during the cold war, right? No they were not John, unless you received SERE training I think you might want to keep out of this topic. As you know you jump or have jumped with guys who have done so, they have a far different opinion developed by first hand knowledge. In fact there are some people that received the full SERE treatment, I am not sure but I think there were slight differences in the training depending on the nature of the mission you perform. Ask Jeanne about that, of course she will not tell you much, as it should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #80 May 15, 2009 Quote You seem to be avoiding the obvious here. … Based on your unrelated response, I'm fairly sure that you did not understand my point. Quote … what does a major political and or military public figure gain if he admits to conducting torture, but that it works? In the case of Cheney, it appears to be a desperate attempt at CYA. Quote No, you have that absolutely backwards. 'Fraid not. Quote How does a military leader know what intel is bad or good? He has no choice but to treat any liable intel as good intel until its proven wrong, the lives of his soldiers depends on it. A competent military leader certainly would not treat any intel as good until proven otherwise, precisely because the lives of his troop depends on the accuracy of intel deemed to be actionable. Quote The FBI takes thousands of calls a day, but not a single one isn't recorded and cataloged. We dont take calls saying a building will be blown up, and brush it off because we dont THINK its reliable, we take it with all seriousness until proven wrong. First, taking voluntary calls is not the same as interrogating captured soldiers/militants. Second, successful veteran FBI interrogators have been among the most vocal in stating their opinion, based on professional experience, that torture is ineffective and does not provide reliable, actionable intelligence compared to other, legal interrogation methods.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #81 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -Evo The FACT (from many studies quoted by Marg) that torture is ineffective and has a tendency to produce "bad intel" is irrelevant to you, then? You DO realize that the techniques we use in SERE training were designed to get FALSE confessions (propaganda) from our people during the cold war, right? No they were not John, unless you received SERE training I think you might want to keep out of this topic. As you know you jump or have jumped with guys who have done so, they have a far different opinion developed by first hand knowledge. In fact there are some people that received the full SERE treatment, I am not sure but I think there were slight differences in the training depending on the nature of the mission you perform. Ask Jeanne about that, of course she will not tell you much, as it should be. Apparently it produced false intel in at least one case edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zach 0 #82 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuotea racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison A racist outcome is one wherein different people are treated differently because of their skin colors. Trying to create "inmate parity" by creating some kind of racial balance in prisons would certainly be racist. Good point, and the most logical thing written on this thread. Zach Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #83 May 15, 2009 When you get your "SI" let me know and then I will actually pay attention to what you say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #84 May 15, 2009 Wow, you guys seem to think that soldiers and airmen go through SERE training in order to learn how to torture. Am I seriously reading that correctly? Seriously? Besides myself and Amazon, who here has actually been through SERE? it's called "resistance" for a reason. You go through that portion of SERE in order to learn how to RESIST torture, plain and simple. all the political pandering and bullshit aside, that is the bottom line. Honestly, those former SERE instructors who are selling their services to the CIA saying torture works (and performing it!) should be prosecuted. For security violations, if anything. Torture is used by weak, immoral, and stupid enemies. Apparently it's OK for the US to be weak, immoral, and stupid, too.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Will_Evo 0 #85 May 15, 2009 Maybe this point should be answered for me. You all seem to quote experts in the field that say torture produces unreliable and often no intel. So an expert in torture, isnt a hypocrite? How would he know torture doesn't work? And if he did use torture, why did it get to that point if he is an expert interrogator? There is a circle here, and I don't see a way around it. An expert in torture, is someone who has used it, more than once, and just the act of using it, makes their argument that it doesn't work completely void. Find me some real evidence, cause your "experts" opinion is as good as mine. Also, a good military leader does NOT EVER brush intel off. He may prioritize intel, and treat each piece with its appropriate response, but he does not simply refute it and move on. By the time intel reaches soldiers on the platoon level it has been verified and found to be good solid intel, intel received at a brigade level is analyzed, every piece and put in order by precedence. I do not know a SINGLE commander that would brush off intel that said we would receive an IED strike on said road, he may not send EOD out instantly, but he may respond by refreshing up training on a soldier level, so that they are more aware, and it would certainly make it to the S2 notes in the pre-mission brief. A commander, especially in the upper echelons who ignored intel, and it turned up to be true, would be fired same day. I have a question are you in the military for you to have an extensive knowledge on how the Army conducts intel operations? I am no intel analyst, but I work with them, and I know how it works, from source to brief.Zoo Crew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #86 May 15, 2009 Will, read this: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906 He explains very well who he is, what he does, and the circumstances in several specific cases. I think it will answer your questions. (credit nerdgirl for the link, from the "cheney emerges..." thread)Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #87 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -Evo QuoteObama won't let the letters be released that cheney wants to be released because it will show that torture does work and did save american lives. It isn't 100% but does work. the Obama administration is getting laughed at by our enemies and have a new resolve to further their agenda. The FACT (from many studies quoted by Marg) that torture is ineffective and has a tendency to produce "bad intel" is irrelevant to you, then? You DO realize that the techniques we use in SERE training were designed to get FALSE confessions (propaganda) from our people during the cold war, right? Hi kallend! Been kind of quiet lately. Are you busy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Will_Evo 0 #88 May 15, 2009 Will read later, good debate going, Im enjoying it, but its time to go jump. bbl Zoo Crew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #89 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuotea racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison A racist outcome is one wherein different people are treated differently because of their skin colors. Trying to create "inmate parity" by creating some kind of racial balance in prisons would certainly be racist. unless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? (and yes, in the us, as in many other anglo saxon, blue eyed countries, blacks are treated differently because of their skin colour. study after study has shown this quite objectively)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #90 May 15, 2009 QuoteSo an expert in torture, isnt a hypocrite? Who said anything about an expert in torture? I didn't. QuoteAlso, a good military leader does NOT EVER brush intel off. No one said anything about brushing off intel. That's far different from not trusting a piece of intel to be true. QuoteI am no intel analyst, but I work with them, and I know how it works, from source to brief. If that's the case, then you are fully aware that torture is ineffective with respect to obtaining reliable and accurate intel (if you disagree, feel free to offer specific examples of interrogators successfully utilizing torture to obtain accurate and reliable intelligence). Furthermore, you should also be aware that good intel has been obtained at high success rates with more humane, legal interrogation methods. From US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation: "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." From the masthead of United States Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association: “…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.” Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942” "The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted." -- LTC James Corum (Ret.) You previously mentioned the FBI. You might be interested to read: Based on his experiences interviewing Islamist radicals everywhere from New York City to Khartoum, [Jack] Cloonan [(32-year FBI veteran, whose experience included counterintelligence, counterterrorism, the Joint Terrorism Task Force)] believes that interrogations can gather intelligence that's both operationally actionable and court admissible (“nothing that shocks the conscience of the court,” as he puts it), and holds that torture -- by hands American or foreign -- is rarely ever useful or necessary. Cloonan and a New York Police Department detective secured actionable intelligence from a suspect in the foiled millennium-bombing plot in just six hours on December 30, 1999 -- by following FBI procedure, and by encouraging a suspect to pray during his Ramadan fast. The suspect even agreed to place calls to his confederates, which led to their speedy arrests. Source “If they think these methods ["enhanced interrogation," i.e., torture] work, they're woefully misinformed. Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world.” --LTG Harry E. Soyster, USA (ret) and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), i.e., the Defense Department's lead intelligece agency, & Commanding General of Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) More? Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. … An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture. Source Here is a quote from Lt. General John Kimmons, U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there." Kimmons added that "our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them." edit to add: Thanks to [nerdgirl] for many of the links.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #91 May 15, 2009 Quoteunless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? I think there are other factors big factors like poverty in that equation. Usually the more poverty in a community there is more crime. It’s not just the skin color.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #92 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteunless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? I think there are other factors big factors like poverty in that equation. Usually the more poverty in a community there is more crime. It’s not just the skin color. so the figures should show that lots of poor whites are in prison with poor blacks - but strangely they aren't.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteunless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? I think there are other factors big factors like poverty in that equation. Usually the more poverty in a community there is more crime. It’s not just the skin color. so the figures should show that lots of poor whites are in prison with poor blacks - but strangely they aren't. Your statement assumes that there are equal amounts of crime committed by whites and blacks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #94 May 15, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote unless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? I think there are other factors big factors like poverty in that equation. Usually the more poverty in a community there is more crime. It’s not just the skin color. so the figures should show that lots of poor whites are in prison with poor blacks - but strangely they aren't. Your statement assumes that there are equal amounts of crime committed by whites and blacks. no, my statement assumes that blacks are no more criminal than whites (people are people the world over)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #95 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotea racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison A racist outcome is one wherein different people are treated differently because of their skin colors. Trying to create "inmate parity" by creating some kind of racial balance in prisons would certainly be racist. unless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? (and yes, in the us, as in many other anglo saxon, blue eyed countries, blacks are treated differently because of their skin colour. study after study has shown this quite objectively) So you think more black people are in prison because of racism and not crimes being committed? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #96 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotea racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison A racist outcome is one wherein different people are treated differently because of their skin colors. Trying to create "inmate parity" by creating some kind of racial balance in prisons would certainly be racist. unless you're saying blacks are six times inherently more criminal than whites then the american prison system is obviously, logically racist. why waste your time denying this? (and yes, in the us, as in many other anglo saxon, blue eyed countries, blacks are treated differently because of their skin colour. study after study has shown this quite objectively) So you think more black people are in prison because of racism and not crimes being committed? so you think that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo you think more black people are in prison because of racism and not crimes being committed? so you think that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites? Nobody here is saying that except YOU, Kevin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #98 May 15, 2009 Quote Quote Quote So you think more black people are in prison because of racism and not crimes being committed? so you think that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites? Nobody here is saying that except YOU, Kevin. no, i'm saying that blacks are no more criminal than whites stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #99 May 15, 2009 Quote no, i'm saying that blacks are no more criminal than whites Agreed. But what about culture? Are some cultures (such as gang culture) more likely than others to commit crimes ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #100 May 15, 2009 Quote Quote no, i'm saying that blacks are no more criminal than whites Agreed. But what about culture? Are some cultures (such as gang culture) more likely than others to commit crimes ... what about the banker and political gang culture - they seem highly criminal stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
