Via Sullivan, this Hugh Hewitt interview with retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington, which featured this tidbit:
HH: Now an e-mail. Mr. Hewitt, can you ask the Colonel if we would authorize torture regarding someone who knows of a nuke about to go off in minutes or hours.
SH: Yeah, that’s the so-called ticking time bomb scenario. The difficulty with that is that that question poses a hypothetical which in my experience, I never ran into a hypothetical like that. If you pose the rectitude, or lack thereof, of torture based upon that hypothetical, you’re not really dealing in the real world. That’s my answer to that.
HH: In an era when we’ve had attempted dirty bomb importation into the United States, and we’ve had WMD used here, in anthrax, at least, are there some circumstances where at least at a classified lever, people ought to walk through those scenarios, to have the rules laid down in stone, Colonel?
SH: I’m sorry, but I didn’t get the thrust of that.
HH: The thrust is, should…I don’t know whether you want to do it publicly, but shouldn’t the military be walking through those scenarios, and establishing the guidelines right now, so that they’re not improvised when and if such hypotheticals occur?
SH: You mean the interrogation guidelines?
SH: Yeah, well I think the answer to that is that you know, the type of information you’re trying to get is obviously situation dependent, and sometimes the situation is more critical than others, but there’s got to be, and that’s what’s going on now, a healthy deliberation, and a laying down of here are the procedures…and this has been done already, here are the procedures that are authorized, here are some more aggressive procedures that are not authorized without the approval of so and so, and here are procedures that you will never do, and so that everyone knows basically what the ground rules are, so there’s no room for hot doggery, you know?
I particularly enjoyed how, even after being told the scenario is not in the real world, Hugh pressed on and thought that guidelines should be created for the fantasy ticking time bomb scenario anyway. That would go a long way to explain our policy decisions the past 5-6 years, and I suggest the administration already has a guy who would be perfect for creating guidelines and policies in fantasy situations- Doug Feith.
Herrington did have some suggestions as to what does work:
HH: Is it effective? Is water boarding effective?
SH: Boy, you know what? I can’t tell you that. I’ve never practiced it. I consider it to be abhorrent, a practice that shouldn’t be practiced by any professional interrogator, and you’re going to have to ask someone other than me. But I, generally speaking, know from experience that when you levy brutality against a person in order to get that person to talk, even if the person hasn’t got anything to say, or doesn’t know what it is that you want, they’ll come up with something to say just to get you to quit doing it.
HH: Do you play on fears of family and their safety, not reprisal, but you know, going back to be with them? Is that effective?
SH: You know, the developmental approach involves engaging someone in conversation and evaluating them. And certainly, I’ve had cases where family played a big part. I once had a prisoner in Panama, for example, who was on his second day of captivity, was in tears, and was depressed, and the guards told me they were worried about him. When I went to see him, it turned out that you know, he’d been captured for three days, his wife didn’t know if he was dead or alive. He had an 18 month old child at home, and he was just totally depressed and in a deep funk over it. I got a cell phone, and we called his wife. I was his friend for life after that.
If that happened today, the pro-torture Republican party and her blogospheric nitwit enablers would advocate having the man stripped down naked, have menstrual blood smeared on him while chained him to the floor in either an exceptionally hot or exceptionally cold room with blaring music. When that didn’t work, they would waterboard him. If the press found out, Donald Rumsfeld would have clucked that he stands all day long at work, so how bad could that really be?
The reason Hugh and others are so desperate to validate the necessity of torture through the ticking time bomb scenario is that it is the only way to justify it, because torture just isn’t effective for information gaining purposes. There are other practices that are better, and that do not debase yourself, your country, and terrorize the victim. In essence, the ticking time bomb scenario is not unlike the old joke (some are claiming it was Churchill and not Shaw, I don’t know- I just googled parts of the joke and this is what I came up with. Wikipedia credits both of them, FYI.):
Some years ago, George Bernard Shaw and a middle-aged London socialite engaged in one of the most famous encounters in the battle of the sexes. Shaw asked the woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She responded with an enthusiastic “yes!” Then Shaw playfully lowered the offer to one pound and sixpence. “Certainly not!” the woman huffed, “what do you think I am?” Shaw smiled and said, “We’ve already established that . . . now we’re haggling about the price.”
The only way they can justify torture is through the worst-case scenario, and then, once it is validated in their own minds, they can apply the torture procedures downward. In short, the ticking time bomb advocates are just haggling for a price.
*** Update ***
I have to comment on this, btw:
HH: You’re not a Steelers fan, are you, Colonel?
SH: Oh, I have to say I am.
HH: You know, that’s…it’s a very sad thing when I find otherwise upright Americans who lack football sense.
SH: But my credibility would be zero if I said no.
HH: No, that’s true, but it’s sort of like an accident of birth.
Browns won a Super Bowl, yet, Hugh?
That is what I thought.
They’ve just all been watching way too much 24, and fancy themselves to be just like their hero.
Did you hear about the military asking the 24 guys to tone it down a notch becuase it was fucking with actual national security training?
anyway. my rightous blood is boiling.
I’m pretty sure The RIght is about six seconds away from disintegration, about the time some home grown nutjob decides to hang a senitor based on an article like this.
Thanks, John, this post gets it exactly right.
Or, perhaps more likely, Frank Gaffney’s article…
The Other Steve
Hugh Hewitt is what I call a Tom Clancy Republican-American.
He thinks that movies and fictional stories represent the real world.
The Other Steve
It would be rather odd for Lincoln to have called for the hanging of war critics, considering Lincoln had been a very vocal critic of the war with Mexico while in the house.
Of course the Browns have won a Super Bowl.
Shoot first, waste taxpayer dollars later?
I mean, the absolute worst part of all this hubbahoo over interregations is how everyone in the know spells out time and again that it doesn’t work, and that “Good Cop/Bad Cop” with emphasis on the “Good Cop” works infinitely better.
But because we’re in a war with terrorists and THEY WANT TO KILL US! we are required to lose all sense of moral or rational compass and start chopping off fingers until someone says something an administrative offical wants to hear.
Republicans are just so… dumb.
I had always heard that George Bernard Shaw story attributed to Churchill, and it was always one of my favorites… We’ll probably never know.
It is listed on his wiki, though it says it’s attributed to several people.
Actually, the tough talk makes them feel manly, which is pretty important since true courage, in the form of serving their country for a war they claim to support, continues to elude them.
Off topic, I have a logic question: what do you call the fallacy when somebody proves your argument–and then smugly claims that it proves their opposite argument?
A friend thinks that the AEI/ExxonMobil flap proves that because the RW is trying to buiy some science it means all science has been bought.
Obviously I told him he was nuts, or arguing in bad faith–but I’d like to hit him with the latin formulation if there is one. Just as (a further) aside this is all the more disturbing as the man is an attorney.
Sorry for the detour–back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Hugh Hewitt is both insane and an a**hole.
A twisted part of me wonders if HH masturbates while reading Mack Bolan novels.
Seriously that guy is so nucking futs I think this line from 7 applies perfectly:
“When you’re just sitting around, reading guns and ammo, masturbating in your own fecies. Do you just stop and go WOW it is amazing just how fucking crazy I really am.”
I don’t get the fascination with 24. One season, maybe I could suspend reality long enough, but six seasons? Sixty-seven torture scenes, where the character gets what they want, right when they want it?
If you like this show, it doesn’t speak very well of your tastes, IMHO.
On the other hand, whatever bastard recommended The Wire, thanks. Running to the video store at 1am to get another DVD and staying all night during a work week… Thanks alot.
It took 67 days of steady torture by the Phillipine military to get Ramzi Yusef’s accomplice to break. That ticking time bomb better have a calendar attached to it or a very long slow-acting fuse.
I watch for the same reason women watch award shos, to tear apart what’s happening on screen.
All the preseident has to do is no aircraft allowed to fly, no vehicle on the street, no exceptions. The real funny part of last year was the people who stayed at work even after a nuclear event. We all know marshall law would be imposed immediately after such an attack.
BTW, Identity Crisis is one of the best comic book series ever produced in the history of the superhero genre.
Elongated Man’s fate was heartbreaking.
I get the impression that Who Spewitt won’t be able to sleep unless he knows that someone, somewhere is being abused by his government.
Too bad Baby Huey wasn’t born in Iraq. He would have been happy as a mentally ill clam during Hussein’s reign.
In the nut-o-sphere the main character is their ideal hero, a loose cannon doing things his way kinda like Bruce Willis in Die Hard, or even the earlier Steven Segal movies like “Above the law”. Further the torture scenes provide them with their sadism fix and further reinforce their belief that torture will get the information wanted from the person and that in the well constructed fantasy Jack Bauer knows all the time that he is in fact interrogating the right guy. After all it wouldn’t be a hit to see them get the wrong guy and torture him only to get the information they wanted and it turned out to be wrong. It reinforces the fantasy world these people live in, reading Mack Bolan, or Tom Clancy or others of the Genre. The difference is Tom Clancy approaches things from a plausible angle and there’s never a “24” scenario, at least for the most part. Even when there is the “heroes” aren’t torturing the suspects to get information.
If 24 proves anything, it’s that torture does NOT keep us safe. I mean, Jesus, look at all the horrible shit that’s happened, with Jack Bauer torturing people right and left. A President assassinated, nerve gas attacks, now a nuke…yeah, Jack, that torture thing’s really working out well, huh?
Here’s a very basic question–why would anyone who is willing to blow up many people, presumably including himself, suddenly squawk under toture to–presumably–save himself?
IOW–if he’s ready to die for a cause, why would the torture of him suddenly get him to speak? He’s already ready to die. If anything, he’d have a lot of incentive to give a ton of phony info, so as to ensure they don’t find the real bomb…
What am I missing here?
This gave me pause:
Aside from a couple of vague rumors from 1998 (AFAIK not mentioning attempted importation into the US), what is the source for this?
A complete disconnect from reality.
This has been another edition of SATSQ
Or, even worse, an Allen Drury Republican-American.
The fact that the terrorist only needs to hold out for a few hours (aka the ticking bomb scenario), so it’s even less likely that he’ll break.
Yep, the retards take 24 way too seriously and apparently don’t have the capacity to tell fact from fantasy. They’re just absorbed in trying to build some self esteem fantasizing they’re a tall copy of Jack Bauer saving the country. They don’t like the reality that they’re much closer to a retarded, incompetent version of Austin Powers without the humor. Like “do I make you a little horny?” Foley, they want to make someone, ANYONE, horny. Guess they think standing up for torture does it for them.
You could see it in the blockquoted text of the interview. The expert tells Hewitt the ticking time bomb scenario doesn’t happen in reality and torture doesn’t work. But HH doesn’t hear any of that. He just keeps on going with his fantasy.
He has to. The 28%ers have told him approving of someone else do the torturing is what gives them balls. Apparently Hugh’s a believer.
I bet he’s leaning back in his seat, though, just in case his interviewee tries to tear his throat out with his teeth. </24>
Torture, we often hear, doesn’t produce useful intelligence, and I expect that those ultimately responsible for promoting these policies know that. If so, then I think we must look at what torture actually does do in order to understand why there’s this drive to get it accepted in the culture (Media promotion, 24 etc.).
Torture is indispensible when you hope to terrorize a whole population into submission, as in Iraq. That’s backfired somewhat, as we all know. But there’s another purpose as well, of value at home. It’s a great generator of confessions, which can be as terrifying as you like.
A flood of terrifying confessions is, in turn, the base ingredient of a good old-fashioned witch-hunt. In medieval Europe, witch-hunts broke out whenever some radical movement came along that threatened the established social order, as regularly happened. The witch-hunt acted then as a kind of divide-and-conquer strategy against the general public. People would be too busy spying on and denouncing each other to worry about onerous taxation, or whatever got them upset in the first place.
My feeling now is that a modern ruling class is reaching for the same tool, but in this case the objective is not so much to protect an existing social order, as it is to protect an emerging social order, that of a police state.
Clancy has been right on the money about the war — opposing it.
I think a lot of the US’s problem is that it confuses Hollywood movies (and now TV series) with reality.
99% of the time, the calvary will NOT come thundering over the hill, there will not be a last minute rescue by Lassie, the hero dies, and the shark wins.
How many people think that Rambo is an accurate representation of Vietnam?
(One of the the reasons the “Retief” SF novels are so good–supposedly the shenanigans of the rest of the diplomats is a pretty accurate mirror of what Laumer had to deal with when in the Diplomatic Service handling Burma.)
You’ve nailed it. This is exactly how Ends Justify Means leadership takes us into the toilet.
Some idiot in Italy has written a book claiming Jews really did use the blood of Christian babies in their rituals. The evidence:
I think that disposes once and for all of any arguments that useful information can be obtained through torture.
BTW, Identity Crisis is one of the best comic book series ever produced in the history of the superhero genre.
…please be spoofing. Please.
I disagree. If you want to perpetrate Holocaust Denial, myths about foreign religions, and any other bullshit story you’re trying to sell to the masses, torture provides tons of useful information.
See, reading that, I can now hate all Jews without feeling like a bigot. After all, who could love a religion that condones crucifying babies?
I don’t get my torture information from 24. I get it from Rome. According to Atia a confession isn’t legal without torture. (Of course this came from a woman who didn’t notice her son was kidnapped and replaced by someone who only sounds vaguely like him.)
Seems to me 24 really upped the torture-porn for the sweeps. Ever since Rush started slobbering all over them, they’ve realized they have a profitable demographic nailed.
I actually used to like the show, in the sense of it being above the usual hack-level escapism. But the last two episodes gave me the sense that the shark is waiting.
And yeah srv, The Wire rocks…can’t wait for season 4.
Zombie Santa Claus
Gotta love language- so much meaning changes so easily.
That’s pretty much all I have to add to this discussion, although I may or may not be Darrell and, as such, may or may not turn up later to derail this entire thread. I refuse to acknowledge whether or not I’m Darrell, although I suppose if you tortured me long enough, I might confess to it.
What if the enemy is just spoofing their being torture?
This does bring a whole new meaning to “hammer time.”
I was waiting for the part where the Colonel tells Hewitt that he’s getting a little too excited and needs to be put in a time-out.
See, it just doesn’t sound credible to claim that aggressive interrogation (which is appropriate until we hear a precise agreed-upon definition of ‘torture’) would never yield useful results. Here is one high profile example where it did. And as Fred Kaplan wrote
Note how John Cole tries to frame the debate as always, accusing the other side of extreme bad faith and of being nitwits… as if no decent thoughtful person could hold a different point of view on the subject. Hey, it’s red meat for John’s giggling groupies.
Holy fuck. I had to follow this one because it blew my surreal-o-meter. Here’s a link to an article on Ariel Toaff and the response to this book.
Zombie Santa Claus
Subject them to a marathon of “24” episodes. That should crack their resolve.
If that doesn’t work, read entire Tom Clancy novels to them. That’s GOTTA constitute psychological torture, anyway.
Zombie Santa Claus
Here I come- or is it really me? I won’t tell- unless I’m tortured!
That is a well-repeated smear on Jews that’s been around forever.
Perhaps some of you of the jewish faith will post some of your “blood pastries” recipes to share.
And there you have it- the wingnut dilemma in a nutshell. I mean, who should Darrell believe? A columnist doing a book review of Seymour Hersh, or an expert interrogator with over 20 years experience?
Love the use of the doublespeak there, Darrell- aggressive interrogation. It’s torture, but with a nicer name. Prolly something the compassionate conservatives cooked up.
While simultaneously complaining that we, as a nation, are losing our Christian values.
Zombie Santa Claus
The truth probably lies where it’s usually to be found- somewhere in the middle.
Really, it’s just assertive interrogation, since America has every right to exist and we’re merely asserting that right by asking questions in an in-your-face, confrontational manner.
Yes John, because those are the only choices. What an absolutist/extremist you’ve become, not even entertaining. It’s not like I actully linked to and cited a case where ‘aggressive interrogation’ actually yielded actionable intelligence or anything. Again
Which led to
No doubt John cole and his groupies will use this as “proof” that I’m ‘pro torture’. What I’d like is just some honest admission that aggressive interrogation methods can and have yielded results. It only makes sense that in some cases it would. Can’t have an honest debate when one side is taking an absolutist position as John Cole has done, claiming it “isn’t effective”. In some cases not, other cases probably yes. Why can’t John and his groupies just admit this?
Ignore that last post, got a poltergeist here I think.
First read this. Then re-read your quote for Kaplan:
you’re falling for play #5 in darrell’s playbook. ‘move the goalposts’.
you didn’t say that torture never, ever works. you said it “just isn’t effective for information gaining purposes.”
in the real world, when something only works a fraction of the time, it isn’t considered ‘effective’. anecdotes aside, if torture works a few times to render actionable intelligence, that does not make it an overall effective tactic.
You are so dense. No one has ever said that someone who knows something won’t give it up if tortured. That is not a position of the anti-torture crowd. Does it btother you that you hate people for reasons that are false?
see also, ‘strawman’ (play #2).
My bad. I should have spelled out that IF the goal of torturing a prisoner is to gain useful intelligence rather than sadistic pleasure, then saying “isn’t effective” is the same as saying “never works”. It’s either effective or it doesn’t work. No moving goalposts required, just use of the English language.
It took forever for me to convince them, but there will be a very exciting new Krispy Kreme product coming onto the market very soon.
Clearly this is a subject on which reasonable people can differ, and we need to wait until all the torture is in.
you’re daft. if you had a blistering headache and walked to the pharmacy and saw a bottle of pills for sale that stated that it took care of headaches 1% of the time, would you call that an ‘effective’ generic headache remedy? but hey, it does work on occasion, apparently.
if torture typically provides crappy disinformation then it isn’t effective. even if it does on some occasion reveal actionable intelligence.
Exactly right. The experts say it is not effective, and Darrell points to Fed Kaplan, who says, essentially, that this one time at band camp…
I get your point. I don’t buy the agressive interrogation only works an infintesimal percentage of the time suggestion, but I do see what you’re saying.
Browns HAVE won a Super Bowl, John. After they moved to Baltimore, in 2000.
You won’t get an honest debate until you have the balls to replace the words “aggressive interrogation” with “torture.”
See, torture worked!
You didn’t even read the Kaplan article, did you John? Here is what Kaplan wrote:
Your position is that it’s a settled matter.. that all, or most expert interrogators agree. From what I’ve read, it’s not settled. And it makes sense that in some cases it would yield useful results. The moral issue is a separate matter.
Tom in Texas
Herrington’s response to Darrell’s “effective” ticking time bomb scenario from Hewitt’s interview (helpfully, but apparently ineffectively, posted in the main post as well):
So it is a hypothesis proposed by people not really dealing in the real world, and not an effective means to gain actionable information, according to a consultant for 24.
Sure, moonbat, but torture provided actionable intelligence on a plot that didn’t exist. Put that in your far left, extremist pipe and smoke it.
You raise a fair point. But
If those suspects turn out to be innocent, you’ll have an even better point. But even if it turns that this case was an example of “torture me I’ll say anything”, it still doesn’t mean that aggressive interrogation methods cannot be effective.
Don’t you DARE ruin this for me….
Tom in Texas
So I guess the 1% doctrine applies to interrogation techniques as well? I prefer methods that work at least half the time, but that’s why these guys are running the show I guess…
Tom, I never mentioned anything about any ticking bomb scenarios. Cut it out with the strawmen.
He’s right. Fred Kaplan has a different opinion so it most definately isn’t settled.
It depends on what “infinitesimal” means, I think. See Darrell:
What percentage of the time does it work?
Tom in Texas
From your link D-Train (the part you excerpted in fact):
This is exactly the kind of dimwitted ‘debate’ I expected.
“Cannot be effective” is not the same as “Generates useful output”
If the real answer is 5, and i roll 1d8 long enough i’ll get the right answer…that means the 1d8 can be effective in producing the right answer. That does not mean that it is usefull for generating output such as “how many guys are wiating to jump us.”
Honestly, you’ll have better luck with the d8 than torture, or the ticking time bomb thing because while you hve suspeicions you don’t really know. and the answer could be anything reasonable and you’ll act on it.
and then unless you are really lucky, boom.
heh. This coming from the man that cited Fred Kaplan as a way to dispute a 20 year expert on interrogation.
Some of them were released. Others were under surveillance and the Brits’ hand was forced making them pick up unrelated (to Rauf) suspects early. So an investigation was hindered by using torture.
Raping someone’s child can be an effective method of getting information out that person. It doesn’t mean it’s moral.
The larger point has to do with this being the second time there has been a high profile example of torture getting “actionable intelligence.” The first was the guy that was tortured and admitted operational links between Saddam and al Qaeda, which was used as a justification to go to war. It turns out that guy was lying too. He would say anything to get the torture (or aggressive interrogation, as you call it) to stop.
Have you checked with Fred Kaplan? For all we know it could be moral.
I’ll wait for Fred’s ruling.
The Other Steve
Heh, that’s rather fascinating, considering the FBI guys and police leadership in that movie act like Republicans.
I don’t understand. Why would someone who resonates with the American prototype of the loner smart guy, vote for the morons?
Since Tom Clancy was brought up as an example of what righty retards enjoy reading, Condi Rice testified that no one in the intel community could have predicted that airplanes could be used as weapons, but it was the entire plotline of a very popular Clancy novel before 9-11, I think she maybe, just maybe entirely full of shit. As for argument with Darrell, why do you people bother, he has been on the wrong side of every issue I have ever seen raised here, he just argues small semantics and calls everyone dishonest when he picks apart their word usage. He is wrong on the substance of every issue, why bother.
The Other Steve
I suspect Darrell is a terrorist.
First of all, we’re not going to know one way or another regarding most cases where torture was used. When we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, clearly he had information about planned attacks on the US troops and civilians. Not sure if he qualifies as a perfect “ticking bomb” analogy, but with his knowledge, it’s pretty close to a ticking bomb type of situation, and I believe he had aggressive interrogation techniques (aka considered to be torture to many) applied which yielded intel..
True… There are at least two side to every debate and all sides deserve an equal voice. So how many people are pro child raping? It could be an effective method of “aggressive interrogation”.
Like I said, I expected that kind of ‘debate’ from you all. A more pertinent question – How many people would support waterboarding for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Tom in Texas
Darrell — random German or Canadian citizens of Lebanese descent are not Khalid Mohammed, and it is repugnant for us to torture or render such people merely to determine if they are his equal. The problem is we use aggressive interrogation techniques as a first resort and consequently are needlessly ruining innocent people’s lives, as well as cases against potentially guilty suspects like Padilla, and permanently destroying our reputation and credibility internationally.
I suggest anyone advocating the use of “aggressive interrogation techniques” have them applied to himself.
We will then find out if he is a member of Al-Quaeda.
My prediction: we’ll find a lot of positives.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Let’s have some honest acknowledgement that in cases like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, aggressive interrogation techniques could reasonably be called for and yield useful results.
Next step is to define in what circumstances aggressive interrogation should be allowed.
It’s been argued here that the “ticking bomb” scenario isn’t reality-based. Never happens is what most here have said. But the caputre of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorist ringleaders are pretty damn close to being a human ‘ticking bomb’ scenario with everything they know. Can you at least agree with that?
Too chickenshit, or just too ignorant, to give a percentage, eh? Could it possibly be that Darrell has NO FRIGGIN IDEA how often it works, but is hoping that we’ll not notice?
I think Darrell may be pro-raping-for-intellegence. Maybe only 1% of the time, or maybe 99%, but who cares about percentages, right?
Tom in Texas
As the interview this thread pertains to discusses, we need clear quidelines and rules for interrogation techniques. Mohammed is an extraordinary case — a man who we could interrogate with the benefit of extensive intelligence, which make s it far more likely we can weed out his misdirections and gain actionable intelligence. In cases such as his, I have no doubt the US has and will continue to use techniques that are questionably aggressive. As Herrington points out, though, positivge techniques such as his offer of cell phone contact with a suspect’s family can, and IMHO does, yield far better results a higher percentage of the time.
From what I remember reading, Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave up all of his useful intel with traditional interrogation methods.
I’ll betcha if we torture Darrell, we can get him to post up supporting Hillary for President, denounce Bush and say the Iraq war is wrong
The burden is on advocates of torture to demonstrate its effectiveness. Otherwise, these advocates are rightly viewed as moral cretins. Saying
should ideally be based on some evidence, rather than authoritative voices in one’s head. Anecdotes may be interesting, but they may just be cherry picked from the infinitesimal percentage.
But other than that, it works just swell! Or maybe it’ll make you swell while it works.
That’s not what I read
Way before 9/11. I read it in the early 90’s and it was far from the entire plotline of the book.
Also some guy flew a small plane into the White House when Clinton was in charge IIRC. I think I remember a reporter holding up a copy of Clancy’s book when he was on the scene at the White House.
Like I said, John, you nailed it.
For those of you with the stomach for it, it’s fairly easy to get Darrell to agree that bombing sleeping kids and their mothers for political purposes is perfectly acceptable. Last time I tried it, using real time events as a frame, it took about two posts.
Try it out. For pure fun on a winter afternoon, Darrell and true sociopathy are a hard combination to beat. Fun for the whole family.
RSA, are you saying that those who have no qualms with waterboarding the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are all “moral cretins”? You’d be talking about 75% of the country, I’d guess.
That’s a bald faced lie which you can’t support.
Tom in Texas
The only way that techniques used on KSM can be possibly justified on someone besides Mohammed is if they are his equivalent. So if every single person we’ve arrested is AQ’s #2 man, then these methods might have a point. Of course, it’s just silly to think AQ has that many #2’s. Who would possibly buy such a preposterous line?
It’s all out there from last summer, Darrell.
Anyone can go and read our Lebanon threads and judge for themselves.
There is no limit to the despicable shit you will dance around to cling to your insane Town Drunk role here, as near as I can tell.
Shall we explore your views on the propriety of sending kids camping with gay scoutmasters?
What are they, Darrell? Can you explain them in a sentence or two? You’ve only been asked to for about two fucking years now.
They want to be this prototype, more often than not they aren’t otherwise there would not be a need for the show.
Tell you what: Find me a person who answers “Yes” to the question, “Do you advocate torture?” and I will call him a moral cretin.
Ok, at least you had the forthrightness to draw a line, even if you drew it well above where I’d draw it. 99% of the posters here won’t even acknowledge that there is a moral dilemna involved at all. If you disagree with their absolutist views, you are a moral “cretin”.
Taking where Tom would draw the line, he wouldn’t advocate getting waterboard aggressive with, say, a captured Al Queda cell leader in Kabul, even if he was caught with a laptop with verifiable terrorist info. to establish his terrorist bona fides.. but lacking dates and places of upcoming terrorist attacks.
I think I’m still a far cry away from the absurd “pro torture” caricatures being thrown around here, but in that example, the cell leader could not be considered #2, #3, or probably not even in the top 20 in the Al Queda command structure.
I wish they would, as they’d find you accusing Israel of intentionally targetting women and children in their attacks inside Lebanon. Talk about a cretin…
You’ve already admitted you’re a whore, the only thing left is haggling over the price.
I think an overwhelming majority of Americans would have no qualms with subjecting the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to waterboarding and sleep deprivation at a minimum.. and it’s a safe bet that you’d have your buck teeth knocked down your throat for calling such people “moral cretins” if you did so to their face.
Where, Darrell, Mr. NeverWrong, does it say that those techniques caused him to spill his secrets? Where does it say that such TORTURE caused him to sing?
Yeah, they tortured him. Did they also let him call his wife and kids, befriend him, and be civil? Until you show me the link that says definitively that his torture LED DIRECTLY to those confessions (and not the civil approach), you have no argument.
Save your violent fantasies for the next showing of 24, Darrell.
Torture works, it works on anyone anywhere it’s all a matter of time, pain tolerance and mental conditioning. However it is very effective when used for its intended purpose, getting a confession.
However it will get a confession from anyone. Having some experience in the infliction of pain (just ask and I’ll share details but it’s usually covered under so-called Alternative lifestyles) I can say, with a lot of confidence, that I and anyone for that matter could beat, psychologically manipulate and even push to the brink of death and get the response that I want. Answers to questions of “Who are your friends?”, “What planes are to be hijacked?”. I could even get them to confess to having thought of killing their families. Why? Because I keep ratcheting up the pain until that person breaks.
Needles, electricity, corporal measures, power tools. All can be implemented to various degrees of effect it’s simply a matter of finding which one pushes the subject (ie victim) to the breaking point. The intelligence leading to the subjects capture could or could not be questionable, I do not know nor do I care because there is a “ticking time bomb” whether the delay is hours, days, weeks whatever each plot is viewed the same way.
In the end the subject is a mass of jelly, mentally and physically broken, maybe a few holes drilled into him. The result is the same, he broke and told me everything I wanted to know. However he had nothing to do with the “plot” he was turned in by a neighbor as revenge for some neighbors quarrel. Call it a strawman no matter how it’s presented. The bottom line is the off chance that the person captured is truly involved in a plot does not justify, at any time, the use of these methods.
Our very laws in how we prosecute suspected criminals, killers, rapists, terrorists like Tim McVeigh were founded on the belief that it is better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man hang. If you can say that you honestly would support the destruction of another human being to the point of being nothing on the frail chance that they will have information you need to stop a crime, even if that person could very well be innocent and stands charged with nothing but suspicion then you are nothing but an animal.
Heh. It reminds me of Muslims blowing shit up because they are mad about a cartoon depicting Muslims blowing shit up.
“Internet Tough-Guys here! Getcher Internet Tough-Guys! One for 3, two for 5! Get ’em while they’re hot, folks!”
I’ll go on record saying this:
I don’t give a crap whether or not “aggressive interrogation” (TORTURE) works. I really don’t care if it MIGHT help stop a plot, or if it already has.
It is morally wrong and against the law. The US signed the Geneva Conventions and by law any signed treaty is law in the US. I don’t care if it might save an entire city. It shouldn’t be done at any time. We have an obligation to treat other human beings as just that, humans. When you reduce a person to a mass of pain, suffering and despair, you have committed one of the worst acts possible. When you open the door on that thinking it is okay if “the ends justify the means” you will slowly allow it against others until the reason for it is no longer “actionable intelligence” and it is to instill fear in our enemies. At that point we are using terror as a weapon.
Do you trust an administration known for ignoring inconvenient intelligence to not abuse torturing prisoners? Do you trust an administration stating that Iran is supplying weapons to insurgents and showing a weapon with English writing and numbers that was supposedly made in Iran? This administration has grown so blatent in its lying that it sickens me. They aren’t going to limit the torture to ticking bombs, they will use it on US Citizens that disagree with them, given the chance.
Torture is wrong and it should never be used because it destroys our humanity.
The only fantasies I have are over that smoking hot chick who plays Kim Bauer.
Which of course would only confirm the accusation.
And Darrell, why do you draw the line at only certain kinds of torture? If you morally accept some, why not take it all the way to power drills, amputation of extremeties, acid baths, etc? Why not become your “Islamofascist” enemy?
Is it because you actually do know torture is just plain morally wrong, so you’d prefer to stick the kind that leaves the least bodily evidence after the fact? That’s the Bush administration’s reason, what’s yours?
Can you show me where Al-Quedastan was a signatory to the Geneva conventions?
Well, I think most Americans would disagree with that absolutist view, depending on the circumstances, but at least you’re putting it out there.
I think the circumstances where aggressive interrogation methods can be used and the methods to be employed should be more clearly defined.
Right now, we’re at the “waterboarding doesn’t work at all so we don’t need to discuss anything else” stage of the discussion.
No it isn’t.
You need to understand the difference between “false positives” and “false negatives”. Torture will eventually break *anyone*. As a method for extracting information, it has an astonishingly low false negative rate — that is, it will almost always extract information that the subject has. The flip side is that it will break *everyone*. It has an incredibly HIGH false positive rate — it will get people to confess to things that they did not do/say/plot, etc.
Sorting the wheat from the chaff from torture-extracted information is impossible without other intelligence; intelligence that renders the whole rationale for the torture in the first place moot. This is why I say torture does not work. It is why my interrogation instructors in the Army say torture does not work. It is why any sane person realizes that torture does not work.
Any test that fails in one direction or the other over 95% of the time is *useless*.
So the logic here is if the rules don’t apply to them why should they apply to us, the laws and higher standards be damned?
Well by that logic my dog can walk outside, piss and shit all over the place and not get in trouble so why can’t I? Or to use a human example, The Dutch allow people to smoke pot but here it’s illegal…well it’s good enough for the Dutch I want to smoke pot, here, now, and who gives a rats ass what the law is. Further they allow prostitutes and gay marriage. By your logic I should also be able to buy then potentially marry a gay hooker too.
Or is this somehow different?
Give me a break Darrell. If you honestly believe that we should not hold ourselves to the very laws that we helped write because we believed we were better than those the laws had in mind then you can go join them.
You also thought that the torture of Rahid Rauf stopped a bombing plot in Britain. Most Americans may agree that torture should be used (not sure that I believe that), but most Americans get their ideas of torture from 24. Most professional interrogators agree that torture is stupid. I prefer to rely on the opinion of domain specialists rather than television fueled fantasy.
As SH, an expert said, torture someone and they’re simply going to tell you what they think you want to hear. If you want happy news regardless whether it has even a shred of factual basis, it works like a charm.
But what’s the cost of that happy news? U.S. soldiers in this or future conflicts
torturedalternatively interrogated? Probably. Hey it works right? A proper tool for any country, group, terrorist who has faith they’re on the moral high ground.
How about American citizens in foreign countries who just happen to be around when shit happens? Well, just enemy combatantize the lot of them to pick them up and then let the interrogators sort it out. If after a few months of alternative questioning some of them confess, well it just shows we were right all along and proves torture’s worth.
Like in Saudi Arabia. After a series of bombings in Riyadh in 2001, the authorities were convinced it wasn’t the work of Wahhabi elements opposed to the royal family. No, the clear reason was British gangs bootlegging alcohol battling each other. The rounded up six middle-aged British engineers working in SA. After some months, they confessed their crimes. The authorities were right! Some were scheduled for public beheadings until that evil worldwide MSM started talking about it. Treasonous slags.
Yeah, let’s be like Saudi Arabia. We already have a moronarch.
Point is there are a lot of costs using torture. So if you’re looking at the label on that headache remedy that says it has a 1% chance of cure, but also notes the side effects may kill you, you might put that bottle back on the shelf a little faster.
Don’t speak for ‘most americans’. Speak for yourself.
You know that book I keep asking if you’ve read? Do you know that part of the theme of the book is that torture works? Do you want to read it now?
Asshatery. Apply directly to the forehead.
Asshatery. Apply directly to the forehead.
Asshatery. Apply directly to the forehead.
I somewhat agree with the first comment, but not the second. I’m sure experienced interrogators will try and verify ALL intel extracted from the suspect, through agressive interrogation methods as well as through passive methods, with known data to help sort the wheat from the chaffe.
And I agree that aggressive interrogation, even mildly aggressive, can intimidate suspects into confessing things which aren’t true. And of course, suspects, especially terrorists, are prone to lie.
Think about when you were a kid and somebody says “none of your beezwax” when asked where their big brother hides his dirty magazines or whatever intel being withheld. Strong pressure and physical arm twisting (or noogies) could often extract the needed info. With terrorists, you may have to take more drastic measures, but the same basic concept applies – in some cases it’s bound to work.
Asshatery. Apply directly to the forehead.
Even in extreme cases? Where was that study performed?
What an absolute fucktard.
Why? You know I’m right. We’ve all had times where we pressured our friends and family into telling us things or doing things they wouldn’t have done otherwise and vice versa.
Why is this universal life experience suddenly discarded when the concept is applied to interrogation of suspects?
Not sure what Fred Kaplan thinks, so the jury is still out.
Darrell, did you torture neighborhood animals as a child? Just asking.
That’s it. Let’s just trade Tennessee to the Chinese for a crapload of debt forgiveness.
There’s apparently no more actually normal people there anymore.
Much of what happened at Abu Ghraib was amateur hour bullshit which was uncalled for.
What about waterboarding Khaled Sheikh Mohammed after his capture? Is that ‘beyond the pale’ Perry?
And, to be fair, when has this administration EVER been interested in intelligence gathering? Bush couldn’t be bothered with “Bin Laden Determined to Attack America” or Joe Wilson’s “No Yellowcake Being Sold to Iraq”. Jose Padilla is still in jail for reasons even the prosecution can’t adequetely explain. The London Hijackers who didn’t even have passports made a better photo-op than links to actual terrorists. We still haven’t caught bin Laden himself.
When, seriously, when has this administration been interested in information they could have received from torture? Even if there was a ticking time bomb and even if we did have the guy who planted it and even if Jack Bauer himself was doing the interrogating, I doubt this President would do more than wipe his ass with the report he got issued.
There it is. Whatever it is, its right there.
Damn, Darrell must have really wanted to see that porn stash.
Darrell. Is. Comedy.
Yup. Again an easy answer. First off KSM didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. Further the stuff we didn’t know, as was reported after some time, led us on wild goose chases and turned out to be misleading.
Further I bet they didn’t have to torture his sorry ass because while he might have been willing to send others to die but he was most likely too cowardly to do so himself or he would have fought us in Afghanistan rather than running to Pakistan.
Waterboarding is nothing more than a torture technique we learned in the jungles of cambodia an vietnam. It is meant to do one thing and one thing only, elicit a confession. Therefore anyone waterboarded will confess to anything given enough time. It’s a known known in Rumsfeldian. To deny that is to ignore reality as well as the limits of the human body.
Despite protestations to the contrary it is a given that anyone who says that they would not confess under torture is full of shit. Especially not someone who was innocent. In the end self-preservation takes over and they’d turn in their own mother if it meant keeping that last finger or not being a eunuch.
Either you’re generalizing from verbal persuasion to torture, or. . .Well, I’d hate to be part of that set of friends and family.
That settles it. Have Congress pass the damn Noogies Against Terrorists Act and let’s end this war on terror.
Let’s ask Col. Herrington:
Interesting. But your anecdote of children twisting arms to find a porn stash is a compelling argument against 20 years of experience from a professional interrogator. I suggest you run with that. Scream it from the roof tops. Show all those lefty extremists, like Col. Herrington, how wrong they are.
care to show me rauf’s ‘al-quedastan’ passport?
The Khmer Rouge didn’t torture, moonbat. They used “aggressive interrogation” techniques.
i just don’t understand the D-man’s obsession with showing that in at least one case torture has worked. this black/white thinking that lead to the 1% doctrine and it’s ilk.
like someone says torture is a worthless technique, and pointing out that it worked once somehow disproves that.
“60 percent of the time, it works every time.”
You should come over for Thanksgiving dinner sometime…
It serves the party. Nothing more.
Sounds like he’s not very familiar with that case. If it “probably” wasn’t needed, then why did the specialist interrogators who were most familiar with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (and with him, it was no doubt the cream of the interrogator crop) make the decision to waterboard him?
You know, I seriously cannot understand you sometimes. Well, most of the time, really.
If I have a sample of 1000 detainees of whom say 10 are terrorists, how many confessions will I get if torture them? If we can be 99% sure that we can get a terrorist to confess, at the cost of 95% of the non-terrorists confessing as well, you will get 959 confessions for those 10 terrorists. You have just managed to overload the entire HUMINT operation for that brigade, congratulations.
You are living in a fantasy-world, Darrell. You have real-life intel weenies like Col. Herrington explaining why it doesn’t work. Hell, *I* am a real-life intel weenie (well, was, I left the Army in ’92, but I was an interrogator during the first Gulf War) telling you why it does not work, and you persist in claiming stuff like “With terrorists, you may have to take more drastic measures, but the same basic concept applies – in some cases it’s bound to work” even though you are told that it doesn’t.
You have a naive, simplistic view of how this stuff works. When I had to interrogate someone, the first thing I was trained to do is put them at ease. You want them to view you as a non-threat (or even a friend). It places you in opposition to the rest of their environment: soldiers with guns, cells, etc. It makes them FOCUS ON YOU. It makes you an oasis of sanity. You are speaking to them in their language, smiling, asking if you can help them. It knocks their psychological supports out from underneath them. It makes them broadcast all sorts of things on a non-verbal level.
Interrogators are trained to read physical cues, not just verbal ones. Terrorists are no different than non-terrorists from an interrogation standpoint. We are social creatures. Isolation from one’s society is disorienting. Repeated transitions from captivity to something that feels like home absolutely crushes resistance.
But keep your fantasy. I’ll never convince you anyway. What do I know? It was only my life for a couple of years.
Sounds like the movie The Negotiator. Which way your eyes move when asked a question can indicate if your pulling from memory or making shit up.
Of course they did. They targeted civilian populations. What do you think those are, Darrell?
Do you support the bombing of those women and children, or not?
Answer the question, you lying piece of shit.
Hopefully a Congressional investigation will allow all of us to be more familiar with the case.
Did the interrogators make the decision or were they told to be more “aggressive”?
Haven’t seen the movie, but that’s not false. The cues are different from person to person, though. You build up a baseline during interrogations to lock down several involuntary cues to help gauge veracity of later information.
On what basis do you conclude that aggressive interrogation methods have such a low percentage of success? Militaries, police and other groups have been using torture throughout the world with success in extracting intel since.. forever.
Why do you think the mob uses torture to extract intel if it’s so ineffective? Why would so many other countries use it for so long if it never worked? Of course it works. What you all are asserting defies all logic and history.
John D. Says:
I’m still waiting for Kaplan to weigh in.
The point Samuel Jackson was making was that one side of your brain is the creative side so if your eyes go there you’re fabricating. I’m sure it was a severe generalization just for us movie watchers but it was a cool piece of info. Changes how I watch cop shows. LOL.
See. Torture works. The general said so.
It’s amazing that the same person wrote both statements. As if the interregators would not identify and prioritize the suspects with the most potential
The irony is no doubt lost on you
Just look at the Inquisition! There were witches *everywhere*.
Would they prioritze themselves right down to the actual 10 terrorists?
Just pick 10 people at random and waterboard them until they admit they are terrorists. Mission accomplished.
…and then start playing ping pong with their balls.
Sorry but you mentioned the Inquistion which I sadly first learned about from History Of The World Pt.1. lol
Dude, the 1000 *is* the prioritized list.
But let’s say we can winnow it down to 100, with all 10 terrorists making the cut. You’ve now got 95 confessions. Congratulations. Which 10 of those 95 are the *real* terrorists?
(Ticking-time-bomb, remember. Hop to it! We need the answer in the next 60 minutes)
Yeah, that’s right. In a pool of 1000 terrorist suspects, if they confess, they’re ALL TERRORISTS. That’s, like, 200 Miami Fives you’ve got there. Count yourself proud. Pat yourself on the back. Mission accomplished.
We got time, they’re using blowtorches on a bridge made of stone. We’re good for a while.
Most of you lefties acknowledge that a suspect enduring torture will say anything to make it stop.
So then, if the suspect really is a guilty terrorist, he knows that the pain will come back in spades if he gets caught lying, so there’s a good chance he’ll tell the truth to make the pain go away, right?
In the case of an Islamic extremist in a (literal) ticking time bomb scenario, I doubt it. He just has to hold out long enough for the bomb to go off, or send the interrogators on a wild goose chase until the bomb goes off. Martyrdom is funny like that.
Of course that entire situation is fucking fantasy.
Nobody under interrogation ever tells the whole truth, in my experience. It’s why you ask questions again and again. It’s why you often ask inconsequential questions, to lull them into complacency and to gauge their reactions before asking something meaningful.
Pain just adds a variable (and a huge one at that) to the process.
You don’t know shit. You’re a liberal, after all, right? That disqualifies you from knowing more than Darrell. See, as a right-wing bloviator, he knows the truth about everything. We’re just here to prove him right, time and time again.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no
That Islamic extremist broke under pressure, as did Al Queda ringleader KSM.
I just want to thank John and Tim for providing Darrell this forum to pull back his ass cheeks and show us his asshole when subjects like this come up.
It’s really a great way to thank all the good folks who support the blog.
You’re clearly using a pre 9/11 definition of liberal when you say that.
The little dweeb obviously watches way too much TV.
Brain dead. Flatline. Dr. Frist may disagree by video analysis, but the proof is on this blog.
A few sentences before that:
Tick, tick, tick, tick. Awesome example, Darrell. It only took them 67 days to break him. Helluva long fuse on that time bomb.
I’m bored this afternoon. It’s entertaining to poke at teh stupid with a sharp stick.
It would have taken them all of 67 SECONDS if they had threatened him with turning him over to the Jews earlier. That part of the story was hilarious. No doubt he knew those Jews would turn his terrorist ass into one of those tasty blood-pastry snacks to be eaten at a Bar Mitzvah party.
Then I think we can come to an agreement. Water boarding is no longer to be used by the US. The only authorized “aggressive” technique is making a terrorism suspect listen to my step-mother kvetch.
The ones with the Cat Stevens music collection
I think you’re confusing him with yourself. Weren’t you the one terrified of Jumping Jews On A Plane? LOL.
Torture is such a gauche term.
How “French” of you. La Moonbat.
Take a BIG whiff TZ. Get that nose in close, cause I’ve got a special present I want to give you before I go.
You are one twisted man, Darrell. Reading your babble is torture.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
We shouldn’t be torturing these guys. We should be killing them, no prisoners allowed. That would make everyone happy — well, almost. Like the case of this Jose Padilla Wannabe, a prime candidate for two in the brainpan instead of a lifetime of free meals:
But he was prolly just in the wrong place, wrong time, like Good Old Jose.
Yeah, happy endings all around. Apparently two bullets to the brainpan is the Mac Buckets alternative to “massage with full release.”
I don’t care if torture ‘works’ , doesn’t ‘work’ or what language you pretty it up with. The simple fact is that this country has been conditioned to believe the WE are the ‘good guys’.
The ‘good guys’ do not torture people!
Now I’m so confused I may have to move to Canada.
I think most americans would aggree that the right wouldn’t have a problem killing americans as long as they were ‘identified’ as leftist.
That’s a brilliant idea. Then we can get John Edward to interrogate their spirit. Quick, someone get EEE&L some wingnut welfare!
Whew. I thought it was just me.
Sorry, I apologize for the ass cheek thing, please take it down if you like. Over the line.
So now Darrell supports/condones using torture as retribution for lying? (lying while being tortured at that)
What should I think of the moral character of an person that condones torture “in spades” for lying under torture?
Darrell, what should happen to an innocent person who is caught lying under torture? Does that person get more torture “in spades” too?
Whatever, moonbat. Darrell only supports
torturevigorous persuasion in high-stakes scenarios, like ‘the ticking time-bomb’ or ‘finding out where someone hid your porn mag when you totally need to rub one out.’
Whatever. He’s just The Deciderator’s pansy-ass cousin.
All methods Darrell has used to determine the whereabouts of the ticking porn stash and therefore perfectly acceptable.
Darrel bought the movie Hostel thinking it was porn. He got home and watched it and decided it would suffice.
The pie was getting tedious. I think I might make this the new Darrell filter.
Everyone EEEL? Uh, not exactly…
So, if we have 1000 terror suspects, and 10 real terrorists are among them, we turn this into 1000 corpses?
I like it. Strong. Simple. Elegant. Effective.
Ya know, I can do sarcasm with the best of ’em, but when we’re talking about torturing and killing innocents, I just lose all sarcastic interest, sorry. I guess I’m just too much “love your neighbor” to joke about such things. Silly me.
What kind of radical Islamic idea is that?
Don’t worry TZ, I met my new neighbor, he’s nice, but he ain’t you. ::evil grin::
He might be a terrorist.
Well if I find out he is, I’ll be sure to let you know. Will you come rescue me?
Oh sure. Unless …. his name isn’t Darrell, is it??
NO, close, but not exactly, it’s Dale.
WTF? You wouldn’t rescue me from Darrell? I’m beside myself.
After two years of fighting him, all I got so far is banned.
Well then I guess it’s a good thing Darrell doesn’t know where I live, huh?
I’m not sure Darrell knows where HE lives.
You could be right, he is lost on so many other details.
Come to think of it, I don’t have much room to talk. I’m not exactly sure where I live at the moment, ROTFLMFAO!
But unlike Darrell, you are a sane person and you will get it figured out.
I’m amazed, I threw you a perfect line and you didn’t bite, OMG!
I just slipped the food off the hook ….
Damn, you did, didn’t you?
Note to self: never, ever sit down across from this guy at a poker table.
Nah, wear sunglesses, don’t move a muscle, and take his chips.
And speaking of torture: Rome Again and Thyme Zone, please stop using these threads to play out your tender, life-affirming, On Golden Pond flirtation. Y’all have derailed countless interesting and/or entertaining comment threads in the most tedious possible way.
TZ, I’ll pre-empt your choleric outburst by asking for a poll.
Who else would prefer that the dynamic duo take it elsewhere?
Heh. We’ve closed down a few dead threads, asshole. Not that anyone cares.
Go fuck yourself.
Hmmm, dynamic… thanks vetiver.
So, I think Muqtada al-Sadr has gone to one of those CIA prisons that doesn’t exist or has left this plane of existence. Anyone have any thoughts?
Trained investigators can tell. You need to use your hands to play poker, and they give away a lot more than people think.
That’s why I play with my feet.
Too much information! None of us need to know about your podophiliac leanings.
My guess, in the secret underground torture chamber still being used in Abu Ghraib.
Oddly enough, that’s one of my hobbies. And yes, my training stands me in good stead there. :)
Man, that Darrell is really a repulsive thug, isn’t he?
Who says I’m being sarcastic? I think it’s a good idea. The GOP should make it their official party platform. They should run TV ads advocating the new “take no prisoners” practice. (I think that level of honesty would actually be kind of refreshing, after all this “aggressive interrogation” euphemistic horse shit.)
His friend EEEL is okay, though.
How about a new thread in which we ask John D questions and don’t talk to Darrell? Or a guest post from John D? I think we could learn from John D. We’ve already learned everything we need to know from/about Darrell.
For example: Let’s pretend torture advocates actually believed it was an effective tool. (I myself don’t think they care, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.) Let’s assume they’ve even conceded that the ticking time bomb scenario doesn’t happen in real life and that, yes, a single terrorist could stall long enough.
However, there are situations where it’d be better to get answers sooner than later. Suppose you had *two* people you’re highly sure of being guilty. Could cross-checking their answers be a way to quickly-enough get them to tell the truth?
(Then we could get to whether such a situation happens often enough to risk stepping firmly on the slippery slope, though I don’t believe torture advocates believe the slippery slope leads to a bad place.)
And: when John D’s instructors dismissed torture, did they use arguments or give examples that we haven’t heard? Were there arguments in favor of torture (like better examples than the ticking time bomb)? How were they countered?
I hate to let people who know things get away just because making Darrell act out is so easy.
Cross-checking answers from multiple sources is one of the primary methods of intelligence gathering. Flat out lying to a suspect to evoke a reaction is another (“Your buddy, X, said you did Y”.), though not as often used, since once they catch on, your credibility with the guy is shot. Mainly, though, you just build a bond with the guy, and he will *tell you stuff* of his own free will. Captivity is very disorienting. Interrogation is an art, backed by science, backed by massive experience, that uses that disorientation to the fullest.
My instructors used arguments, examples, Geneva Convention, etc. This was right as the Berlin Wall was coming down, so a lot of the negative examples (i.e., bad info gleaned through torture) was framed as a result of KGB actions. We were interrogated by instructors. We were interrogated by classmates. We interrogated classmates and instructors. We were interrogated for information *we did not have*; that particular demonstration convinced me how bad intel is gleaned. A large portion of our training is to supress our natural instinct to find what we are seeking. A good bit of the time was spent dismissing illusions a large group of 18-to-25-year-olds had about what interrogation was — a lifetime of books, movies, TV shows and popular culture stuff about interrogations is just flat out wrong.
Other things that are wrong — contrary to the assertions of some people, one does not need to be a signatory to the GC in order to be protected under some of its provisions. Those particular provisions are the Common Articles, which apply to all people, of all nations (or so I was taught). We were told, specifically, that an order to torture (and we had a long list of techniques that were forbidden) was by definition an illegal order, in violation of the GC, and we were supposed to refuse.
You don’t need a guest post from me. I’m not a great source of information, nor a great writer with a lot of time. I’m just a guy who knows a bit more than your average person about interrogation due to training, and that training is 17 years old. Events of the last 3 years have proven to me that the standards under which I was trained are now obsolete, so I’m not a good source for current information.
I don’t post much, but I read BJ all the time. I’m not going anywhere. Thanks for the kind words.
As an aside, you can see the Army Field Manual 34-52 (which covers interrogation) here. Appendix H covers, in general terms, the various techniques. The whole manual is a good read for those who want to know more about the US Army’s interrogation policies, standards, etc.