CDZ Would you support enhanced interrogation if:

[Pop23]

Such is the reprehensible right's contempt for the rule of law.

The ends never justify the means.

I take it you would prefer to allow many of your Countrymen die than to exhaust any and all chances that you could save them then, right?

You think that leaves you with clean hands? Here's a clue, it wouldn't. They would be bloody as hell.

 

[martybegan]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

You didn't answer the question.

Most certainly wrong. The question in the cited post was answered and alternatives to physical pain infliction, mostly for the eagerly sadistic joy of doing it (as is clear from some posters), has been discussed in above threads. Read them.

How do you get information from someone in a hurry?

That's the question.

 

[TNHarley]

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.
What do you do?

 

[dblack]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.

 

[Care4all]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

Care to define "proven techniques?"

Ask the interrogators, who use the legal methods daily....cops or the CIA, or military intel agents....

Do you think they don't know what they are doing and just twiddle their thumbs?

 

[toobfreak]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....
plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

All forms of interrogation are capable of yielding false information, and there is NO PROVEN INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE other than skilled torture to make a person talk when they don't want to. Making overt torture illegal was intended for conventional combat situations where prisoners are captured from each side in a temporary conflict and was never intended to apply to an ongoing and potentially endless terror situation involving trying to stop an impending catastrophe of mass destruction involving millions of lives and trillions of dollars!

Such people are traitors and traitors deserve no leniency. For a government not to do everything in its power to stop such an event is both criminal and monstrous. Even more, harsh punishment is a very effective deterrent and is the basis of our entire penal system. To say that the most heinous monsters of society that would kill millions is a protected lot under law is both laughable and brings into question who wrote such a law and why? Time to correct such laws then.

 

[martybegan]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

Care to define "proven techniques?"

Ask the interrogators, who use the legal methods daily....cops or the CIA, or military intel agents....

Do you think they don't know what they are doing and just twiddle their thumbs?

Cop out. We are talking about time sensitive scenarios, tick tock tick tock.

And how many confessions do cops actually get?

 

[Rambunctious]

The jihadists are fortunate I'm not in charge...because I would begin at water boarding and if that didn't work crank it up a notch until it does...how many years do you want to fight this war? another 20?

 

[there4eyeM]

What is it that keeps people asking this question over and over; it was answered:

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.
What do you do?

Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?

 

[TNHarley]

What is that keeps people asking this question over and over; it was answered:

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.
What do you do?

Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?

So you just think we need to keep techniques quiet?

 

[Pop23]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.

What do you think a Jury of ones peers would say?

If you got the information that stopped the killings? None would have the guts to vote guilty to a Hero that saved countless innocent life

If he didn't get the information in time? None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life

win/win

 

[Pop23]

No, of course not! Torture gives you false information....better to use proven interrogation techniques....

plus torture/ENHANCED interrogation is ILLEGAL.

I'm sure those that would die when all else failed, would disagree

torture is known to give false information, sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase, the terrorist wants to die and be a martyr...

better to use proven techniques of interrogation questioning and get boots on the ground doing gumshoe work to find it...

Care to define "proven techniques?"

Ask the interrogators, who use the legal methods daily....cops or the CIA, or military intel agents....

Do you think they don't know what they are doing and just twiddle their thumbs?

So why so many trials if those methods are so dang good? Why do so many terrorists succeed when we pick up those with information on them and their cells?

Clue, they fail more often then they succeed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?

Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.

However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.

Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group

he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)

 

[Pop23]

You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?

Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.

However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.

Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group

he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)

Am I reading this right? The sugar cookie thing was after nearly a year?

OK, then.............

Moving on

 

[Pop23]

What is it that keeps people asking this question over and over; it was answered:

Be real, folks!
First, it is absolutely inadmissible that America, land of the free, etc., have as an approved policy that torture be not only tolerated, but approved. The image is too ugly to accept. The damage to U.S. reputation is too much to pay. We can't be a country like that.
Second, of course anyone, anywhere, would use whatever means it took to dislodge information of the imagined magnitude presented in this thread. It doesn't have to be said and discussed. That only makes it seem even more hypocritical if things ever come to that.
Third, short of some extreme, absurd situation imagined here, torture is out of the question. Nyet. Nichts. Non. Basta. It is something only the disgusting would be involved in, or encourage!

So what do you instead?

Mostly, what governments, military and secret service units do is make it so the situation they want to use as an excuse is of the unimaginably dire type.
This is assuming the "you" in the above quote is general, and not personal. I would know the difference between ultimate and relative emergency. Burning down New York is one thing. Shooting five hostages is another, after all, in the so-called real world.

Lets say someone knows the location of a nuke about to go off in times square. You have him captured.
What do you do?

Does a rational nation advertise to its adversaries that it is as reprehensible as they?

If you don't want a nuke in one of your largest cities? I don't really care

 

[dblack]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.

What do you think a Jury of ones peers would say?

If you got the information that stopped the killings? None would have the guts to vote guilty to a Hero that saved countless innocent life

If he didn't get the information in time? None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life

win/win

Exactly. If the justification was there - if it was truly worth it. If it was just a hardened CIA operative who seemed to enjoy his work a little too much, then we throw him jail and make an example of him. Mostly importantly, we don't accept it as SOP.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?

Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.

However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.

Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group

he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)

Am I reading this right? The sugar cookie thing was after nearly a year?

OK, then.............

Moving on

Guy didn't talk to anyone until after they gave him some sugar cookies. And, like I said, if there is a bomb set to go off in 48 hours, any terrorist would be willing to take some torture for a couple of days. I mean, if they are willing to blow themselves up, why wouldn't they be willing to get slapped around for a couple of days, especially if they knew that holding out would get the desired results.

 

[Pop23]

You know, this is really kind of a impossible scenario. IF a terrorist was caught, and there was credible evidence that a WMD was going to go off in the next 48 hours and you thought that person knew about it, what is to stop them from lying to you for the next 48 hours and delaying the investigation to buy time so that the WMD would go off?

Putting a time limit on it is kinda screwy, because there are a lot of terrorists out there who would be able to hold out for a couple of days of waterboarding. I mean, there were several at GTMO that had it done to them over a month, and it never yielded any credible information.

However......................sugar free cookies seemed to work pretty well, and no waterboarding required.

Ali Soufan Interviewed: After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk? | The Soufan Group

he most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or “walling” and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured. (See pictures of do-it-yourself waterboarding attempts.)

Am I reading this right? The sugar cookie thing was after nearly a year?

OK, then.............

Moving on

Guy didn't talk to anyone until after they gave him some sugar cookies. And, like I said, if there is a bomb set to go off in 48 hours, any terrorist would be willing to take some torture for a couple of days. I mean, if they are willing to blow themselves up, why wouldn't they be willing to get slapped around for a couple of days, especially if they knew that holding out would get the desired results.

Quick death is far better than prolonged pain.

 

[Pop23]

There was credible evidence that the person being interrogated had knowledge of an impending terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction? What if that person was an American citizen?

Nope. I would never support torture as an official policy. Would I do it, or want someone to do it on my behalf, if I genuinely believed it would save innocent lives? Absolutely. But anyone making that call had better be able to defend themselves in court and prove that their actions were justified.

What do you think a Jury of ones peers would say?

If you got the information that stopped the killings? None would have the guts to vote guilty to a Hero that saved countless innocent life

If he didn't get the information in time? None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life

win/win

Exactly. If the justification was there - if it was truly worth it. If it was just a hardened CIA operative who seemed to enjoy his work a little too much, then we throw him jail and make an example of him. Mostly importantly, we don't accept it as SOP.

I can mostly agree. And one of the best parts of not making it SOP is that they don’t prepare for it.

 

[jwoodie]

None would have guts enough to vote guilty to someone who did everything in his power to save countless innocent life

Unless they were Senate Democrats.