My wife and I saw the movie today, and it wasn't the sort of thing that makes you feel proud to be an American. Then it was timely that she received this from the National Catholic Reporter.

From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB
March 16, 2007

Vol. 5, No. 34
There are some things that being born in the United States simply does not prepare a person to imagine. One of them is a headline on the front page of a local newspaper reporting a "debate" going on in Congress on the use of torture as a part of U.S. military policy. A debate? What's to debate about it? Unless, of course you, were working for the court of Philip IV in 14th century France.



But, no, it's here now. In the United States. In our generation. In fact, they're now making movies about it.

This column, be assured, is not a film review. Others closer to the industry will do that very well once the film is released Oct. 19. But film quality is not the issue at hand. Content is the problem.

"Rendition" is a film dealing with the newly refined U.S. practice of outsourcing U.S. military prisoners to other countries for incarceration and "questioning." (I use the word loosely.) "Enhanced questioning," the President calls it. "Torture," the rest of the world is calling it.

That such a thing can happen here, by us, with little public response to it, is almost impossible to believe if you grew up bathed in the honor, integrity and high moral ground of this country. In fact, to say otherwise -- to say almost anything about maintaining traditional national standards -- is to be accused of "blaming America first." So much for "removing the speck in your neighbor's eye and ignoring the log in your own." Let alone "freedom and justice for all." But what a log it is. And what an injustice it can create. Which makes you wonder who are the real conservatives here.

The most startling public awareness of U.S. torture came in 2006. But not in this country. Oh, no. Instead, the British Broadcasting Corporation released a documentary in London detailing the work of plane spotters from one end of Europe to the other who had traced the routes of secret U.S. aircraft involved in the transport of "disappeared' detainees to clandestine prisons. The sites ranged from Eastern European countries to Egypt, Syria and Yemen. And all of it with the support and collaboration of European countries that simply looked the other way as the U.S. crossed their airspace hauling men taken in a "sweep," meaning without clear cause to do it, to secret, unknown prisons for what Washington later called "aggressive interrogation." "This can't be true," I thought, as I watched the methodical detailing of British investigative journalism. "We wouldn't do such a thing."

But Amnesty International had also been gathering information on the process. April 6, 2006, AI published its damning and definitive report titled Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and 'disappearance.'

The article detailed with chilling specificity the systematic breaking down of human beings to gain information that they did --- or didn't have.

So, I give up, tell me again: What's the debate about?

The government says it's about "keeping the American people safe." But from what? From decency, from humanity, from morality, from law? Because by now, the stories of official U.S. atrocities are pouring out from all over the world. Just surf over to this page, www.thegully.com/essays/torture/torture2.html, skim the headlines. Surely that ought to be enough to tell us that we are up to our necks in tactics too close to sadism to overlook. Tactics that break the minds of innocents and decay the soul of those who call themselves victors.

But forget the morality question in an era when annihilation is a tactic on tap. What can we possibly hope for in human standards in an age when destruction of the globe is one possible option. And anyway, it's for a good cause, isn't it? After all, the very phrase, "the war on terror," is a magic phrase. It justifies anything we do, doesn't it? Peccadillos all, I'm sure, as long as we're the ones who are doing them.

For those with enough conscience left to question the project, however, maybe it wouldn't hurt to look instead at another news story from Oct. 13, 2007.

This story (Vatican to tell true knights' tale) records that the Vatican has just recently published secret documents about the inquisition and heresy trial of the Knights Templar in 1307. Pope Clement V, it seems, initially absolved the medieval religious order of heresy. But under pressure from King Philip IV of France, who saw the wealth of the Knights as a threat to his kingdom, Clement suppressed the order. Then Philip used the accusations to arrest the leaders of the order and extract, under torture, confessions of heresy that justified Philip's seizing of their property.

Now what's to regret? It was a good cause, after all. No doubt King Philip was "saving the church" as well as "saving his country." Just as we are. The confessions he got under torture, unfortunately, belied the findings of the trial. But they did, conveniently, even if wrong, give the king a way to seize the riches of the order.

I'm sure the Vatican was sorry about it all.

But therein lies the lesson: Material gained under torture is simply not credible, a conclusion reached by Eyemeric, the Grand Inquisitor of Aragon himself in 1357, who said, information gained under torture "is deceptive and ineffectual." Which means that the torturer isn't credible either. Or, to put it another way, how can we ever hope to stop the school shootings and gang warfare we abhor while we're doing it ourselves? How do we tell our children that their violence is bad but our violence is good?

From where I stand, torture is too unreliable an item to build the morality, the credibility, the integrity of a church -- or a nation -- on it. After all, we can't have it both ways. Either the Inquisition was good -- or it wasn't.

What a bewildering question, is torture justifiable? Well, it surely isn't an extreme which nature designed living creatures to withstand.. But tell me this, if there was an attack coming on your city, community, family, and you caught somebody that could give you the information with which you could save them but could only obtain it under torture, how far would you go in inflicting physical and mental pain on this human being to obtain the information?

Until the bastard talked or the bomb exploded!

We should've never put ourselves in the position where we felt the need to torture people to feel safe. That's what's F'd up.

How do you guys feel about foreigners torturing American Soldiers or intelligence agents?

I have found that people tend to think torturing Americans is a heinous act, but yet torturing other people is ok.

If we torture people then we are pretty much telling any of our enemies or future enemies to go ahead and torture our people , right?

If we torture people then we are pretty much telling any of our enemies or future enemies to go ahead and torture our people , right?

Yep!
They are going to do it anyway.
If we torture someone it is to prevent a heinous act, or to gain information about those who facilitate terrorism. Not to be a brutal savage.(as they do)
If I had a fellow in my custody that knew information on who , what, where, when and how, your family was going to be brutaly murdered and he wouldn't talk,..I bet you would want me to get midievil on his ass!
If you say no,...your either a liar or a pussy.

Yep!
They are going to do it anyway.

Does that mean we should do anything our enemy does?

You think China, Russia, north Korea, most of Europe and any of the other many countries we send intelligence agents to, will go right to torture when they catch one of our guys?


If we torture someone it is to prevent a heinous act, or to gain information about those who facilitate terrorism. Not to be a brutal savage.(as they do)

I am sure the first questions they ask will be ones to try to prevent "attacks" on themselves, and learn about informants etc. They would be pretty dumb not to.

If I had a fellow in my custody that knew information on who , what, where, when and how, your family was going to be brutaly murdered and he wouldn't talk,..I bet you would want me to get midievil on his ass!
If you say no,...your either a liar or a pussy.

Making decisions based solely on personal feelings is not really the best way do things, especially for a country, don't you think?

I don't actually think torture is viewed as a really effective form interogation , by people who are actually involved with interrogations, is it? when people are tortured they just say whatever will make it stop. I mean, it might feel tough to say "yeah torture them", but I don't think really works well to provide accurate info.

Does anybody have concrete evidence that we have tortured anybody?

Does anybody have concrete evidence that we have tortured anybody?

Maybe Al Gore,

Does that mean we should do anything our enemy does?

You think China, Russia, north Korea, most of Europe and any of the other many countries we send intelligence agents to, will go right to torture when they catch one of our guys?

Yes & Yes



Making decisions based solely on personal feelings is not really the best way do things, especially for a country, don't you think?

:rolleyes:

I don't actually think torture is viewed as a really effective form interogation , by people who are actually involved with interrogations, is it? when people are tortured they just say whatever will make it stop. I mean, it might feel tough to say "yeah torture them", but I don't think really works well to provide accurate info.

You are an idiot if you think these ***********************************s wouldn't cut your throat in a heartbeat,...what are we supposed to do,...Oh I'm sorry Mr. Terrorist we are going to let you go for now if you feel like telling us what we want to know at a later time just let us know,...........don't forget to stop at the front desk and get your free U.S. Passport on your way out,...Have a nice day and Allah Akbar

If I had a fellow in my custody that knew information on who , what, where, when and how, your family was going to be brutaly murdered and he wouldn't talk,..I bet you would want me to get midievil on his ass!
If you say no,...your either a liar or a pussy.

About a week ago I heard an interview with an American who had interrogated prisoners over multiple wars for decades, starting at Nuremburg. He said that bogus question is what the pro-torture crowd always uses, but in all of his career, he had never seen one real-world example of a ticking clock counting down to some disaster if we didn't get the information. It happens in the movies, but he had not seen it in real life.

His big objection to torture wasn't morality, but simply that it didn't work. He said that real professionals treated each subject as an individual, found out what made him tick, and then established a relationship and exploited it. He gave several examples of successes, but I'm afraid I can only remember one.

Some guy being questioned had not given up a thing, but he finally figured out that the guy was worried about what his wife might be going through wondering what had happened to him, so he let him call his wife and let her know he was still alive and OK. After that, the guy told him everything he wanted to know.

He deplored the fact that we seemed to have turned interrogation over to amateurs who didn't know what they were doing.

As to the question of whether we actually torture, 36 retired generals seem to think our policies are a problem.

http://www.casavaria.com/sentido/usnews/law/2006/06-0916-GOP-revolt.htm

and even Bush acknowledges the existence of secret CIA prisons. Do you suppose we send people there for rest and relaxation?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-acknowledges-existence-of-secret-cia-prisons/2006/09/07/1157222253628.html

I agree pain in itself will get you an answer that stops the discomfort,
Manipulation of the mind through various methods and getting inside his head as you mentioned above will get the best results. Torture can be many different things depending on the individual, sleep deprevation is mild torture,..but it softens the person up, disorientation and solitude is mild torture, but like the guy you mentioned above, it gives him "think time",
I believe there are escalating levels that can be toyed with to find that little chink in his armor,...yeah the time sensitive mass destruction scenarios are for hollywood,...but who knows, maybe some of the things we have thwarted were a little more time sensitive than we will ever know...
I get frustrated with the cotton candy individual that thinks we have to treat todays enemy like a lamb,....when their goal is our death.

It turns out that my wife was listening to that same interview in her own car, and I asked her to refresh me on other examples that the guy had used.

In one of them, the subject of interrogation told him that if they went to his house and brought back a certain briefcase, the papers in it would tell them what they needed to know- or maybe it would prove his own case, I forget which.

So they got into his house and brought the briefcase out. The contents didn't turn out to have anything to do with the subject of the interrogation, but it did contain a diary that gave details of his relationship with his mistress. He just wanted it out of the house so that his wife wouldn't find out about the mistress.

He was so grateful that the diary was out of the house. They didn't even have to threaten him with telling his wife about the mistress- it was just understood. He told them what they wanted to know, and they never had to lay a hand on him.

You are an idiot if you think these ***********************************s wouldn't cut your throat in a heartbeat,...what are we supposed to do,...Oh I'm sorry Mr. Terrorist we are going to let you go for now if you feel like telling us what we want to know at a later time just let us know,...........don't forget to stop at the front desk and get your free U.S. Passport on your way out,...Have a nice day and Allah Akbar

I didn't say any of those things, you are just trying to put words in my mouth because you don't actually have reasonable argument

And just in case you didn't read all the way to the end of Sister Joan's piece, the bottom line is

Material gained under torture is simply not credible, a conclusion reached by Eyemeric, the Grand Inquisitor of Aragon himself in 1357, who said, information gained under torture "is deceptive and ineffectual."

Modern professionals tell us the same thing, and even the Spanish Inquisition seemed to have figured it out centuries ago.

what is your solution?

what is your solution?

Stop using rendition.

"Rendition” Film All Too Real for CIA Kidnapping Victims
Opening in theaters nationwide today, the feature film Rendition is about the CIA kidnapping of a fictional character, Anwar El-Ibrahimi. Unfortunately, the practice of extraordinary rendition is all too real.

The unlawful practice of "extraordinary rendition," abducting foreign nationals for detention and interrogation in secret overseas prisons—has been used by CIA operatives since Sept. 11, and must be stopped.

Khaled El-Masri’s story is but one real-life example of the damaging effects of extraordinary rendition. El-Masri, an innocent German citizen, was on vacation in 2003 when he was kidnapped by the CIA. Black-clad masked men beat him, drugged him, and flew him to a secret prison in Afghanistan. He was held incommunicado for five months, long after his captors became aware of his innocence.

In 2005, with the assistance of the ACLU, El-Masri brought a ground-breaking lawsuit against former CIA Director George Tenet and others. On October 9, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review El-Masri’s case, letting stand a federal appeal court decision based upon the government’s assertion of the “state secrets” privilege.

In addition to Khaled El-Masri, the ACLU represents five other victims of the government's "extraordinary rendition" program in a case against Boeing subsidiary Jappesen Dataplan, Inc. That case charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct logistical support to CIA flights used in the rendition program. The case is pending in federal court in the Northern District of California. The ACLU also continues to urge Congress to review and dismantle the rendition program.

And by the way- if you needed a reason to think it was wrong, it was started under Clinton, although continued under Bush. Anything that Clinton did must be wrong, right?

America has lost its way. We used to be a example to live by. Our foreign policies have put us in a downward spiral. We need a reset. Vote Ron Paul.

FWIW,I would torture anyone pretty easily,but an known terrorist or supporter as a first method and after that drugs and hypnotherapy for as little reason as say.....
1.Directly saving someone I love,no matter if there was a ticking clock or not.

2.Someone directy involved with a cause I construe as a direct threat to me,my loved one or even you guys.

3.Preventing someone from providing material support for a cause that I construe as directly threatening to me,my loved ones or even you guys.

This is because I actually believe all that duty,honor,country crap AND I also believe that God/evolution/FSM whatever has endowed me with several tools (intellect,courage,consience)that allow me(and possibly even you or others:))the ability to discern what may be in the best interests of those whom I took a sacred vow to protect and the will to implement my choice.
If I felt it was justified or necessary it would cause me little sleep loss to do all the chicken-shit practices that our govt. is accused of and quite a few far worse.

Darwin/Fate/Life is cruel bitch but my drive for survival is pretty close to the surface with a very thin veneer of civilization.In the end all of personal decisions will be pro or anti-survival.Some of us just make no bones about what's really at stake and how far we would go to actually further our cause.

FWIW,I respect Bill a great deal for a numbers of reasons but this very near the top.When you are called to protect your tribe/family/country you will be placed in a position where you will have to decide who,how and when somebody/s is going to die.Only those who have done so can speak to topics like this with certainty on how they would or did act VS. those who spout opinions.
Chew on that for a while.

Bill, were you not in Viet Nam? Did they not have those underground networks of hidden tunnels? Were there not villagers cooperating with the commies and hiding them and their weapons? I'm sure that in those situations captured enemy soldiers were "interrogated" on the spot and civilians too. I'm sorry for talking about things I have no personal experience with but it appears logical to me that those situations do in fact occur in real life.

Bill was a Dirt Dart, the only tunnel he ever saw was the one that his plane was digging.

Bill's Plane:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mnguy004/McIntyreJet.jpg

If America uses the same methods as terrorists and dictators, then we are no better than they.

America used to be a 'shining beacon of hope'- now we're disgusting for our hypocrisy.

:nono:FWIW,we never were any better...see slavery,see Irish&Italian immigrant prejudices around the turn of the century,and the list goes on ad nauseum.

That being said we are the beacon of HOPE still,we never were nor will be the beacon of moral rectitude.

FWIW -- I was once in a bull session regarding resistence to interrgation. One old guy listening in was a WWII pilot who was shot down over France and captured a couple of weeks later. The Gestapo interrogated him seeking information about the resistance. One guy had taken the macho position that there was "no way" they could make him tell more than name, rank and serial number. The old man pointed out the steel framed door and remarked that if he put the man's left hand in the door and slammed it as hard as he could, he'd tell him anything he wanted to know to keep his right hand out of the door.

So, we should be like Nazis too?

In the service, you are expected to resist questioning as much as possible. This is an individual limit, though, and no one is expected to resist until death.

As others have pointed out, confessions or information under torture is rarely reliable- and for us to resort to it makes me think those in charge learned foreign policy from comic books and hollywood movies.

Is that really the official guideline of the US military? What happened to name, rank, and serial number? Regardless, EVERYONE will talk under torture and if they don't know the answers they'll invent some. There have been some exceptional cases throughout history though.. This is a sad topic.

That is all that is required under Geneva conventions. Torture is illegal under geneva conventions. However, the Nazicons are trying to say the conventions don't apply to 'enemy combatants'.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

I sure feel a lot safer knowing you guys are safely somewhere typing away about the evils of warfare vs. actually being out running the show.

I thought "survival of the fittest"was the creed we all were supposed to follow now,my bad.

I sure feel a lot safer knowing you guys are safely somewhere typing away about the evils of warfare vs. actually being out running the show.

I thought "survival of the fittest"was the creed we all were supposed to follow now,my bad.

Some of us do both.....

I sure feel a lot safer knowing you guys are safely somewhere typing away about the evils of warfare vs. actually being out running the show.

I thought "survival of the fittest"was the creed we all were supposed to follow now,my bad.

What, you're a salamander, trying to fight back against invasion of frogs? Darwin's theory described behavior between species over (ridiculously) long periods of time. As humans, we're supposed to be above mere survival (we already won the inter-species war... GO HOMO SAPIENS, DOWN WITH NEANDERTHAL.. anyone remember that old cheer?). Very little I do day-to-day is about mere survival. I want things to be better- and in a world where we torture others to 'survive' isn't it. I'd rather be on the side that is morally right. But your attitude is 'better Red than Dead' (another old cheer).

I was in the military...

Are you condoning torture? Is that what you'd do if you were 'running the show'? I don't think anyone in the military would condone torture- because we are/were most at risk for it. Then again, no one in the current administration has any military experience (okay, broad brush, but give me artistic license), so there you have it.

If you're all for torture, then why the whole 'rendition' process. Set up torture camps in the good ole' USA.

Sending people to other countries to be tortured is worse than slimy.

I was in the military...

Are you condoning torture? Is that what you'd do if you were 'running the show'? I don't think anyone in the military would condone torture- because we are/were most at risk for it. Then again, no one in the current administration has any military experience (okay, broad brush, but give me artistic license), so there you have it.

If you're all for torture, then why the whole 'rendition' process. Set up torture camps in the good ole' USA.

Sending people to other countries to be tortured is worse than slimy.

Good points,toe.However,I wouldn't condone torture if we were fighting an enemy that abide's by the ROE's and the Geneva Convention as we do.But they don't.Hell,they don't even abide by Islamic law.WTF ? So,what do you do ? Now I don't really have a problem with psychological harassment and water torture for examples.Live skinning,not so much.We're not the animals they are.
I ,too,don't like the rendition process.My belief is if your gonna play at the dirty end of the field,you had better be prepared to get muddy.

But why? our enemies are so weak compared to us they don't have planes or a navy and we have nukes and satellites.

Are they really so scary we can't beat them without using torture?

Torture camps here,now why didn't I think of that.And let's just put it on satellite and the internet to make sure everyone gets to see it
How about we get this terrorist see,and a big wicked looking knife and slowly cut off his head(seem familiar).But first we have a pig rape him,a woman defile him(unless he enjoys that)then we burn the body so he doesn't get to heaven.

Maybe after a few of those we will see a deterrent effect,if not the whole world already believes we do it in secret anyway and his dead ass will not find his way back to a battlefield somewhere halfway around the world where we first caught him.No net loss except for a little hand wringing.

You guys keep using that bogus ticking bomb analogy. And you keep ignoring the fact that professionals say torture doesn't work anyway, unless you consider letting some sadist get his rocks off beneficial.

Sometimes I wonder if people even read entire treads or just pick up with the last post when they happen to tune in. At the risk of indicating that I think what I say is all that important, here is something I posted earlier.

About a week ago I heard an interview with an American who had interrogated prisoners over multiple wars for decades, starting at Nuremburg. He said that bogus question is what the pro-torture crowd always uses, but in all of his career, he had never seen one real-world example of a ticking clock counting down to some disaster if we didn't get the information. It happens in the movies, but he had not seen it in real life.

His big objection to torture wasn't morality, but simply that it didn't work. He said that real professionals treated each subject as an individual, found out what made him tick, and then established a relationship and exploited it. He gave several examples of successes, but I'm afraid I can only remember one.

Some guy being questioned had not given up a thing, but he finally figured out that the guy was worried about what his wife might be going through wondering what had happened to him, so he let him call his wife and let her know he was still alive and OK. After that, the guy told him everything he wanted to know.

Another example he mentioned- the subject of interrogation told him that if they went to his house and brought back a certain briefcase, the papers in it would tell them what they needed to know- or maybe it would prove his own case, I forget which.

So they got into his house and brought the briefcase out. The contents didn't turn out to have anything to do with the subject of the interrogation, but it did contain a diary that gave details of his relationship with his mistress. He just wanted it out of the house so that his wife wouldn't find out about the mistress.

He was so grateful that the diary was out of the house. They didn't even have to threaten him with telling his wife about the mistress- it was just understood. He told them what they wanted to know, and they never had to lay a hand on him.

He deplored the fact that we seemed to have turned interrogation over to amateurs who didn't know what they were doing.

So if it makes you feel better, then torture away. Just know that it doesn't work, and is even counterproductive.

Bill,I'm with you that the ticking bomb defense is lame.

I am all about intent(thiers) and results(ours).I have seen no scientifically derived evidence that torture(or any type of interrogation) is more or less effective than another.
Merely invective,hearsay and a great wringing of hands and knashing of teeth.

It may have a deterrent effect if we actually used it.... which has also never been proved in court as far as I am aware.

I didn't want to go outside and breath the bad air and ashes, so I rode the stationary bike and watched the Monday night Charlie Rose program which I had recorded. This is another program which reminds me why I think PBS is so valuable. He spent the entire hour interviewing General Hayden, the Director of the the CIA. Not only would no other program spend an hour with Hayden, but Hayden wouldn't go on another program where he wouldn't be treated so fairly while still being asked the hard questions. But I digress.

I really wish everyone who is interested in this subject could have seen the program so that we could all compare notes and tell about the parts that we thought supported our own cases. Unfortunately, I'll just have to try to recall what I saw.

On Rendition- he said that there were some people that didn't fit into the guidelines for people he could detain here, so he had to ship them to another country. Charlie tried to pin him down on that subject and even came back to it later, but I don't think he explained it to Charlie's satisfaction or to mine.

He said we only sent them to countries where we had assurances that they would be treated as well as we would treat them, but he admitted that CIA agents were not present at their interrogations. I don't want to misrepresent him here, but he said that the countries where we sent them would not want to jeopardize their relationships with us, so they would be very reluctant to mistreat these people. I know I'm not doing justice to the way he said it, so I can only wish you could have seen and evaluated it yourself. He is a very persuasive guy.

He said frankly that torture doesn't work. Charlie asked him again, and he reiterated that torture doesn't work.

When asked what works and what the CIA does, he said that one of the best things they do is show the guy what they know about him. It screws up his cover story when they give him details that he had no idea that they could know.

Other than that, I think he said that the approach that worked was psychology. He wouldn't go beyond that because if he did, then resistance to the approach would be in the Al Queda training manuals.

I know that I'm not doing justice to the entire interview. It was an hour long, and then the next night it had one more half hour. It covered such topics as the responsibility of the press when it published stuff leaked by a CIA agent, and many other topics. Hayden is a very smart guy, and Charlie Rose is a very smart interviewer. It was worth watching.

Damn this thread I need to unsubscribe from it..

You keep coming back to the argument that torture doesn't work, it seems to be the central theme of your posts. I think you don't want it to work and you want to convince others that it doesn't work so that you'll feel you've done something good for the world. The bottom line is that torture works. It works so well that the problem becomes separating between truth and the imagination of victims who become so eager to please the torturers that they'll tell them what they think they want to hear. But they will tell everything they know.

Whether it's moral, whether you'd be part of a government that does it, whether you or I will do it, that's another question. I can tell you with certainty though, there are people who'd love to apply for the job, in the US and world wide.

The bottom line is that torture works.

OK.

What does the Director of the CIA know?

What does John McCain know?

What do 36 retired Generals who signed a letter know?

And what do all the active duty Generals who have spoken out know?

I'll put them in touch with one of your many pseudonyms so that you can set them straight, based on your wide experience.

They all know one thing; what they want the public to think.

Torture works so well that just the threat of torture produces results.

Bill, why the hell do you take this personally and start with the low blows? Do you feel your point of view so shaken?

Famous for not revealing any weapon we may posess.We had stealth technology and subs in Russian waters far before the public knew about it.

Another thing to consider is that generals by and large operate under an education that mainly deals with warfare with countries and soldiers who we hope subscribe to Geneva limitations.The folk we are dealing with are not bound by any civilized limitation nor do most consider what is being described as torture as anything more than an inconvenience.They are pretty devoted to thier cause and perfectly willing to die and take women,children and other innocents with them.

Why hell, if listen to enough people.... we knew about 911 and did't do anything because we wanted to invade Iraq so Cheney's buddies could retire richer.

David Rivkin, who is a constitutional law expert and writes regular syndicated columns, has stated that torture generally does not work. He feels that coercive techniques/interogations works best. I believe he worked in the Justice Dept for Reagan and Bush I.

Here is an interesting interview from just a few days ago. I happend to come across this the other day while driving through the outskirts of Atlanta.

http://www.bennettmornings.com/pg/jsp/media/flashwelcome.jsp?pid=33543&playlist=true&charttype=chart&chartID=302&playlistSize=2

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s170/da4095/Smilies/PullingHair.gifWhere's the common sense gone to..

Damn this thread I need to unsubscribe from it..

You keep coming back to the argument that torture doesn't work, it seems to be the central theme of your posts. I think you don't want it to work and you want to convince others that it doesn't work so that you'll feel you've done something good for the world. The bottom line is that torture works. [b]It works so well that the problem becomes separating between truth and the imagination of victims who become so eager to please the torturers that they'll tell them what they think they want to hear.[b/] But they will tell everything they know.

Whether it's moral, whether you'd be part of a government that does it, whether you or I will do it, that's another question. I can tell you with certainty though, there are people who'd love to apply for the job, in the US and world wide.

Then really, if they'll say anything just to get it to stop, then the end result is that it doesn't work because we can't be sure if anything they said while being tortured is true.

What makes you so sure that torture works? Bill has at least presented an argument based on the opinions of experts on the subject. All you do is state things as if they are fact but without any backup to prove your point.

Hell he's even quoted the grand inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, who didn't think torture was effective because the quality of the information given wasn't credible because people would say anything to make it stop.

torturing people , weather it works or not, has a real tough guy appeal to it

people get frustrated and want to show they are tough or vicious or whatever, so they say stuff like "we should torture people",

yeah but what if the person don't know anything?

I bit off topic, but something to consider when dealing with Islamic terrorist. Alfa group was a counter-terrorism arm of the former Russian KGB.

During October 1985, Alfa was dispatched to Beirut when four Russian diplomats had been taken hostage by militant Sunni Muslims. By the time Alfa was onsite, one of the hostages had already been killed. The perpetrators and their relatives were identified by supporting KGB operatives, and the latter were taken hostage. Following the standard policy of 'no negotiation', Alfa proceeded to sever some of their hostages' body parts and sent them to the perpetrators with a warning that more would follow if the Russian hostages were not released immediately. The tactic was a success and no other Russian national was taken hostage in the Middle East for the next 20 years.

Food for thought?

Then really, if they'll say anything just to get it to stop, then the end result is that it doesn't work because we can't be sure if anything they said while being tortured is true.

What makes you so sure that torture works? Bill has at least presented an argument based on the opinions of experts on the subject. All you do is state things as if they are fact but without any backup to prove your point.

Hell he's even quoted the grand inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, who didn't think torture was effective because the quality of the information given wasn't credible because people would say anything to make it stop.Why don't you do a little experiment. Pretend that there's a secret you don't want anyone to know, then imagine yourself completely helpless with no hope of escape or sympathy, with the threat of your pick of torture applied by someone who gets the only joy in his life from this work. You know, the kind of person that puts kittens on a barbecue grill.. All your premises are based on the idea that the person is trying to protect the information and his resistance to the torture is founded in his resolve to do this. That is very noble and is best seen in the movies. What information is this that the desire to protect it is stronger than the need of self preservation? The reality is that when confronted with danger to oneself all other ideas tend to disappear.

As far as the grand inquisitor saying torture wasn't effective.. Duh! You're talking about people trying to get other people to admit they're in league with the devil, what kind of accurate information do you think they're going to get?

I love how you point out that I don't have "sources" to back up what I say, I'd consider myself stupid if I needed sources to know what I'm saying here. Are you Asian? Japanese perhaps? One of the reasons samurai chose seppuku is to not end up in that predicament. I personally have never been involved in cases of torture other than being beat up as a normal part of growing up. But I'm well read and have been exposed to old timers from different cultures; the former Soviet Union (think Stalin era) and Cuba (think Batista then Castro) I do not have my head stuck in the sand.

BTW this is only a mental exercise for me in debating, I couldn't care less what you or others believe on this subject. In your case being only 23 years old I'd say your life experience is lacking to know any better, in Bill's case I'd say he wishes the world was a better place.

What's my excuse.
I served in the military in the Middle East,lived there for 4 years total.I have very good Muslim friends and Christian Iraqi extended family in-laws.My brother is married to Jordanian
I am 44 and have seen bodies and body parts of innocent victims of terrorism.
I have 1 nephew a NYC fireman who missed 911 in a traffic jam trying to get back as he had just gone off-shift(he subsequently buried all but 2 others in his firehouse)
I have 2 nephews and a brother in law that do high steel in Manhattan,2 were on top when the planes hit,B-I-law was on the ground.They all did clean-up at the site.
I grew up with a father and older brother directly involved in the gathering of military intelligence.

Maybe I'm just one of those guys who is vicious just because I feel weak or powerless:tool:
....or maybe It's not about hate but simply using every option on the table.

GUNNY,
IM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY ONE THIS ONE, OUR COUNTRY, OUR FAMILIES AND OUR CHILDREN COME FIRST, AND WE WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEM FROM DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM, PERIOD............................................ ...........END OF STORY:2gunsfiring_v1: