FBI Agent Discusses Bullcrap Regarding Torture

[rightwinger]

We then have to define tourture and critical information.

lets play out the scenario. FBI has had a group under survellience. They know the basic members, and that they are planning something. One day new info from the CIA has definitive proof that a few loose former ruskie ADMs (Atomic Demolition device) have been sent to the USA. The group being observed has connections to the group being observed, and intel leads the FBI to believe that the group is ready to do whatever they do.

The main base is known to the FBI, and it is known the group has several vans in its possession. It is decided to raid the base. Upon entering, all the vans are gone, you pick up one person, a known mid level person in the group, and the carrying cases for the of the ADM's., empty of course.

So at this point you are reasonably sure that 3 nukes are loose in the US, you have a person who probably knows whats going on.

At this point please tell me how you get the information you need out of this person.

and as a direct answer to your question, if it is a matter of roughing up one person vs. a crater in the place of a US city, I say yes. Not to punish, but to get them to talk.

We are not talking about torturing evil suspected terrorists we are talking about torturing Americans

If an Air Force pilot is captured and has knowledge about US tactics, aircraft capabilities and vulnerabilities, future targets etc

How much should he be tortured? He has knowlege that could save tens of thousands of lives....how much should he be tortured? Which torture methods do you support being used on Americans?

Not the same. an Air force pilot is a uniformed member of an armed services of a soverign nation, given Geneva rights. it would be more like me jumping into an F-16 and trying to bomb some poor slobs. I would be an unlawful combatant, and therfore not covered un geneva, and leagally could even be shot upon capture. The pilot is also following lawful orders, unlike some nut trying to place a bomb in a basement in Boston. (and if they were, then we could retaliate against the people who gave the orders)

The citizenship issue is a real one. Based on the above, if it were an american citizen there would have to be a procedure in place to get a judge to rule on it quick.

As for methods? Dont know.

You still havent answered MY question. How do you get the information out of your suspect?

Humainty is still humanity. If a uniformed member of the armed forces has information that could save tens of thousands of lives if the enemy can get it.......are they justified in torturing him to get it?

It is the same ends justify the means argument

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are so sure of that how? Are you privy to all our intel?

I think not.

Oh and I never watched 24.

Ticking time bomb scenario - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a justification of torture, nothing more. The scenario criteria have NEVER been met, even though Cheney lied, and said it had been.

Do you actually think if it had been met, we would know about it?

Well, Cheney talked about it on Meet the Press, giving false examples to justify it.

So, yes. I think they'd jump at the opportunity to tell us about a situation, to justify it.

 

[George Costanza]

We then have to define tourture and critical information.

lets play out the scenario. FBI has had a group under survellience. They know the basic members, and that they are planning something. One day new info from the CIA has definitive proof that a few loose former ruskie ADMs (Atomic Demolition device) have been sent to the USA. The group being observed has connections to the group being observed, and intel leads the FBI to believe that the group is ready to do whatever they do.

The main base is known to the FBI, and it is known the group has several vans in its possession. It is decided to raid the base. Upon entering, all the vans are gone, you pick up one person, a known mid level person in the group, and the carrying cases for the of the ADM's., empty of course.

So at this point you are reasonably sure that 3 nukes are loose in the US, you have a person who probably knows whats going on.

At this point please tell me how you get the information you need out of this person.

and as a direct answer to your question, if it is a matter of roughing up one person vs. a crater in the place of a US city, I say yes. Not to punish, but to get them to talk.

We are not talking about torturing evil suspected terrorists we are talking about torturing Americans

If an Air Force pilot is captured and has knowledge about US tactics, aircraft capabilities and vulnerabilities, future targets etc

How much should he be tortured? He has knowlege that could save tens of thousands of lives....how much should he be tortured? Which torture methods do you support being used on Americans?

Not the same. an Air force pilot is a uniformed member of an armed services of a soverign nation, given Geneva rights. it would be more like me jumping into an F-16 and trying to bomb some poor slobs. I would be an unlawful combatant, and therfore not covered un geneva, and leagally could even be shot upon capture. The pilot is also following lawful orders, unlike some nut trying to place a bomb in a basement in Boston. (and if they were, then we could retaliate against the people who gave the orders)

The citizenship issue is a real one. Based on the above, if it were an american citizen there would have to be a procedure in place to get a judge to rule on it quick.

As for methods? Dont know.

You still havent answered MY question. How do you get the information out of your suspect?

OK - I'll jump in here. Suppose we are in a LEGITIMATE war with a foreign power. We have captured one of their flyers - a lawful combatant, subject to the Geneva Convention, the whole ball of wax.

We know that he has information regarding a planned, nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland. We just don't know when or where.

OK to torture the enemy flyer to get the information?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FBI Agent Discusses Bullcrap Regarding Torture

How many times have people (mostly right wingers) stated that without torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) the USA would not have gotten information vital to keeping the USA safe?

Because people here have very limited news and information sources (ideology and hatred towards msm, and networks, newspapers) I bet have they have used the examples given in the video above - wrongly. People here have been spreading falsehoods, lies, propaganda about the so called WoT: war on terror.

My Tortured Decision - Video Library - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber.

Okay class...from the beginning...

 

[Toome]

Reading Soufan's article and credentials, he is a very credible source. I think it would be foolish to question his motives, expertise or patriotism. He's a guy who wants to get the information. He's saying that the so-called "enhanced interrogation" methods are the wrong way to obtain that information, especially when traditional interrogation techniques have proven to be as effective, in some cases even more effective. And he's dispelled certain "facts" used to justify enhanced interrogation: we obtained much, if not all, of the information BEFORE these controversial techniques were employed.

My background comes from the military perspective. Military interrogators aren't interested in protecting anyone's civil rights or human rights. They will work within the confines of the military regulations that establish a standard of conduct, but they're not emotionally invested in the process. Ask any military interrogator around (those who have actually interrogated prisoners, suspects, detainees and terrorists), and they will tell you almost to the last person that enhanced interrogation simply does not work. It is counterproductive. It instills the will to resist rather than overcome it.

Interrogation is a chess match. It's a matter of keeping track of the moves the opponent made, anticipating the moves the opponent will most likely make, and making moves that will throw your opponent off his game. It is something that is done with finesse and requires a lot of patience. Waterboarding is about as sophisticated as playing chess with a two-by-four.

My challenge to waterboard defenders is: if you were a commander whose mission was based on intelligence obtained through interrogation, would you bet the lives of your men on information that was beat out of someone or information that a prisoner offered and that same information having been confirmed by another independent source of intelligence? This is what dispels the so-called "ticking bomb" argument.

Although I think it was driven as a PR move, I also support the Obama administration's policy of following the techniques in the Army interrogation manual and getting rid of contractor interrogators. The Army interrogation techniques have withstood the test of time because they work. And none of them call for slapping or threatening prisoners. The civilian contractors were cowboys, and they did more damage than good. I'd say we ought to hold each and every one of them accountable for their stupidity and gross incompetence, but they were acting under orders. We gave them that permission, and for that, we're to blame.

I will add, however, to not be fooled into thinking that military interrogation is a pleasant thing. It most certainly is not. As a human race, we need a set of values to believe in...yes, even terrorists need that, and a military interrogation screws that up and turns it upside down. Bruises from physical hits always heal. Bruises from having ideals, beliefs and principles shattered are something different.

The comedians at the CIA never understood that subtlety.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Reading Soufan's article and credentials, he is a very credible source. I think it would be foolish to question his motives, expertise or patriotism. He's a guy who wants to get the information. He's saying that the so-called "enhanced interrogation" methods are the wrong way to obtain that information, especially when traditional interrogation techniques have proven to be as effective, in some cases even more effective. And he's dispelled certain "facts" used to justify enhanced interrogation: we obtained much, if not all, of the information BEFORE these controversial techniques were employed.

My background comes from the military perspective. Military interrogators aren't interested in protecting anyone's civil rights or human rights. They will work within the confines of the military regulations that establish a standard of conduct, but they're not emotionally invested in the process. Ask any military interrogator around (those who have actually interrogated prisoners, suspects, detainees and terrorists), and they will tell you almost to the last person that enhanced interrogation simply does not work. It is counterproductive. It instills the will to resist rather than overcome it.

Interrogation is a chess match. It's a matter of keeping track of the moves the opponent made, anticipating the moves the opponent will most likely make, and making moves that will throw your opponent off his game. It is something that is done with finesse and requires a lot of patience. Waterboarding is about as sophisticated as playing chess with a two-by-four.

My challenge to waterboard defenders is: if you were a commander whose mission was based on intelligence obtained through interrogation, would you bet the lives of your men on information that was beat out of someone or information that a prisoner offered and that same information having been confirmed by another independent source of intelligence? This is what dispels the so-called "ticking bomb" argument.

Although I think it was driven as a PR move, I also support the Obama administration's policy of following the techniques in the Army interrogation manual and getting rid of contractor interrogators. The Army interrogation techniques have withstood the test of time because they work. And none of them call for slapping or threatening prisoners. The civilian contractors were cowboys, and they did more damage than good. I'd say we ought to hold each and every one of them accountable for their stupidity and gross incompetence, but they were acting under orders. We gave them that permission, and for that, we're to blame.

I will add, however, to not be fooled into thinking that military interrogation is a pleasant thing. It most certainly is not. As a human race, we need a set of values to believe in...yes, even terrorists need that, and a military interrogation screws that up and turns it upside down. Bruises from physical hits always heal. Bruises from having ideals, beliefs and principles shattered are something different.

The comedians at the CIA never understood that subtlety.

It's refreshing to see some people getting it. sans the personal attacks on Agent Soufan, the arguments against his pov fall short