If, while you are away you hear that 100,000 Americans were killed in the US and your family was part of that group how much will the “retained national virtue and moral superiority ” mean to you?



And since the catastrophic event is not unlikely do we forgo the information that some few may have for privilege of maintaining that we never use rough treatment? Do we then feel better after the event as we see these folks high five-ing each other on their way to the caf to get the steak dinner?

What are the “philosophical implications” and do they outweigh the potential losses? Do we imagine that we have not used rough interrogation in past wars?


And my point is they don’t need these arguments because they have others – and since their actions are so brutal they can never say that they have the “moral high ground” or an “excuse” to torture based on anything we do – this is their method – graphically displayed on 9/11.

So the question imo is not “shall we torture em all” because clearly they would be unproductive and disgusting – but how do we deal with captives that we know have key information because they were part of the operations planning cycle. If we agree that we can never use rough techniques ever – then lets be ready to live with the consequences – an I mean all of us, because many people will not be happy when they learn that information to stop an attack was in the heads of people we held in custody and we could net get it out of them.

This imo is what the four House menbers who, right after 9/11, saw the new CIA rough techniques hid little issue with it and one even asked if we could “do more” – as in rougher.

The current Army FM 2-22.3 HUMINT Collector Operations is poorly written and does not adequately provide guidance or direction focused on effective interrogation methodologies. Due to the political climate at the time leading up to its publication two years ago, far more space is devoted to what an interrogator should not do, and upon laying out very specific restrictions and prohibitions (repeated many times throughout the manual).

Although clearly stating operational limits of acceptable behavior with and towards EPWs and detainees is certainly important, and belongs in the manual, the most important element - the actual conduct of interrogations (primarily contained in Chapter 8 Approach Techniques and Termination Strategies) - receives short shrift. And because the manual states up front that the only interrogation approaches and techniques that are authorized for use against any detainee, regardless of status or characterization, are those authorized in this Field Manual, it is thus fatally flawed.

There are several important aspects of interrogation that are not covered in this FM, which means that our doctrine is weak and flawed - and with doctrine driving training, the second and third order effects should be clear to all. If the admonition at the front is followed to the letter, that means that our interrogators are now inadequately trained to conduct interrogations against difficult sources, and thus (in contrast to the intent of the manual) more likely to fail in their collection efforts and act out frustrations with the difficult sources.

What is lacking is an adequate description and guidance for the operational use of the triad of cognitive, kinesic and emotional methods that make up the foundation of manipulative human communications - which are e the bedrock of effective interrogation methodology. Instead, what we have in the manual is a restrictive listing of techniques that are but pale reflections and simplistic echoes of complex, mature methodologies that have been operationally tested and proven over decades. (none of which consitute torture or "physical pressure") To institute this horrible piece of politically-driven doctrinal drivel as the standard by which interrogators across agencies will conduct operations would be a bad decision, to put it mildly.

I don’t know what the political consequences or benefits will be, but I still think it was a politically motivated vote on McCain’s part.
Great minds (I'm laaughing, but my cat avatar isn't) must run in the same direction. Rachel Maddow echoed my thinking on last night’s Countdown.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23184008/

If we know they have "key information", why are we torturing them?

I've said before that if I knew there was a ticking time bomb scenario (much different than "key information") and the person in front of me knew which school cafeteria it's planted in, I would use any means available to get that information. I would shoot him in his kneecaps, cut his fingers off, crush his testicles, and any unimaginable tactic it took to get that information from him.

Then, I would go to jail.

If I am serving my country in this capacity, I am ready to die for my country. So, I would be ready to go to jail for it as well - which incidentally, is better than death last time I checked.

Later, we would have the court case where I - the guy that extracted evidence from someone that found the ticking time bomb - am being prosecuted. The prosecutor would have to try to send me to jail for the actions I took that saved countless lives.

How far do you think that case would go?

But what torture supporters want, is blanket immunity for an interrogator's actions. We tell the world that the people we believe to be bad guys can't act in a barbaric manner, but we can because we're a less barbaric and righteous. Then, we act like "military" and "intelligence" belong in the same sentence so when a superior officer that got his degree in zoology tells a subordinate that somebody probably knows something bad, it's ok to torture him because we've made it legal.

It's funny that it's mostly republicans favoring torture when the entire premise relies on a competent government. As a small government party, they should know that doesn't exist. Anybody that claims to be for limited government, but thinks torture and immunity from prosecution is ok, is nothing but a phony.

Even if that were true, is the knowledge that we torture muslims going to endear us to muslims? The gap between torture for a 'good' purpose and atrocities that AQI commits is not all that wide. And the Iraqi's know this.



That's the point. With all of the mistakes we have made, much of the world does equate our moral code with theirs. An adjustable moral compass may keep you on the path that you believe is correct, but you surely can't be surprised when that compass creates and enables more enemies agains the US.

Because they refuse to give up said info and all other methods of extracting it have failed. Mustang above cover the subject of the “manual” well and this imo is why even McCain did not vote to make it the “bible”.



Any high level operative will have operational details of upcoming planned operations. Thus the time bomb is always “ticking” and we have no clue how much “time” is on the clock or how big the event tied to it is. So if your logic is as above you would use rough methods to get this information.

The fact that only three people fell under theses methods and then only after all other methods were tried tell me that 1. they felt they had key information. And 2. that they were not going to get at it any other way.

Hayden says this was the case and I tend to believe him.


Actually I think this is kind of a “worker” or professional demand from the rank and file. After all if you were told to use the methods would you if you knew you could go to jail later for following orders?


No such thing as competant government, but this is speaking of a small group with certain high value people. I saw no indication that this administrations wanted to shield any action, such as Abu-grabe, from prosecution.

I see... and McCain suddenly decided to actually read the manual between November 2007 and now? He hadn't read it before then?



Well, I have tracked down the bill. The section that McCain opposes is Section 327 in the Conference Report.

FY 2008 Intelligence Authorization.

Here is McCain's statement on the floor:

Senator McCain Statement on Intelligence Authorization Conference Report

Here are McCain's statements at a Republican Debate:
McCain Says Army Field Manual Guide on Torture is Sufficient

To address Clinton and Obama's stance...

here is Clinton's letter to Bush regarding this specific legislation:

Clinton Calls on President to Support Humane and Effective Standards for Interrogation

Obama Q&A (excerpt)

As noted above by Mustang the manual is vague enough to include lots of things and/or get people in trouble over interpretations. This is why we need to be careful

I don't read anywhere in his post where he says it's vague. Where does he say it's vague? His post is vague, but nowhere does he say the Manual is vague. And, again... McCain seemed to give the impression that it was sufficient. The people McCain spoke to in Iraq also seemed to say that it was perfectly fine and was effective.

Per the Geneva Convetion, humiliation is verboten. A strict reading of the GC would result in interrogations amounting to "please tell us something useful", with the emphasis on "please." The strict GC reading gives the prisoner more rights than a criminal has under American law per the most radically liberal ACLU reading.


Four points regarding the argument over torture:

1. It is permissible to kill or maim a terrorist in order to prevent a terrorist attack, if done so while in the act. What is the moral difference if the terrorist is not actually in the act of carrying out the attack?
2. The "moral high ground", so beloved by some, is often a cemetery.
3. Seeking to keep the entire country on the "moral high ground" is a risky proposition, especially for those who often insist that "imposing your morality on others" is wrong. After all, defining the "moral high ground" is crucial to seizing it, and the two equal "imposing."
4. Some objecting to "enhanced interrogation" have reflexively attributed base motivations to the interrogators. Do they have any foundation for implying or accusing that the use of such techniques is motivated by a lust for power or sexual perversity, or is it merely their own bigotry speaking?

Apparently some believe the only intel that can be had must be gained by using nice people to listen in on the weekly AQ den meetings,

and then to hand out tea and cookies afterward.


what was it .... it is a famous quote some where ....



As a sheepdog, I doubt people understand, unless they have put on the collar too.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/10/i_only_hang_wit.html

Ok...I'll bite.

There are two problems with your trollerific premise. One, you assume the person is a bad guy as if there is some level of competence in our military. Our military is great for killing bad people and leveling villages. The could defeat any enemy imaginable. But outside of that, they suck. You - along with Ted - believe in military intelligence. I'm here to tell you, it doesn't exist. That term is an oxymoron. What has intelligence gotten right in Iraq? Can you name one thing? Why don't you start with WMD?

Second, let's pretend they get it right and the person is a bad guy we suspect has good intel. So, we beat it out of them, except we make sure it doesn't cause permanent damage or whatever twisted loophole you can come up with. Doing this, we defeat the enemy in Iraq, we win the war on terror, and the middle east becomes a haven for rainbows and puppy dogs.

Until the next war. Maybe it's in another area that doesn't give a crap about jihadists. It may be about the sovereignty of Taiwan, agression in the Koreas, Bosnia, Kosovo, whereever. Now when our guys you pretend to support so much gets captured, those same loopholes apply. They can figure out ways to torture our guys righteously just like you are doing.

So, when we tolerate NO torture whatsoever, we can demand the same of our adversaries.

So, when we tolerate NO torture whatsoever, we can demand the same of our adversaries.



ummm... this is idea is incredible....



sorry I just can't seem to stop


oh wait you're serious.

1) No enemy will give a hoot what we do they will do what they will.

2) It is a pretty twisted thought process that comes up with this ...


the rules of war

1) Kill People
2) Break things
3) go home

that's it , you go in with overwhelming violence, crush the enemy, get it over quickly and make certain that they know if they step out of line we will be back to kick their tails again.

I am all for not being the type to as you put it "Level Villages" we don't do that unless it is 100% required.

as far as WMDs. there are more than a few threads here for that so let's not start with it ... ok ?

Apparently, some believe that somebody, anybody in this thread has made that argument. Simple question: If we discovered that AQ had waterboarded a captured soldier or agant, would you defend their action as 'necessary' or for their greater good?

If you wouldn't, then you are engaging in a tautological argument, bereft of logic. Calling it "enhanced" or "aggressive" or whatever adjective you wish is merely slapping lipstick on a pig.



You're not the only sheepdog here, but that doesn't mean all sheepdogs are devoid of critical thinking. And when you engage in the same actions as those you vilify, moral bog aside, you create blowback which only perpetuates the cycle when we are dealing with fairly excitable muslims.



Yeah, that theory has worked out real well for us in iraq.........

I don't like it either way,

I have been fairly clear about this I dont think we should be waterboarding every prisoner, I dont think 99% of them should get more than a simple name rank serial type questioning , maybe a quick operational field interogation, that may tactically help forces immediately.

If the enemy were to capture a flag officer I would not doubt for a moment that they would do anything we would do and far worse I assure you.

but to remove this tool, of at least make public our banning of it. is a psy-op feather in the enemies cap.

Maybe that is where we differ. I dont think anything is too good for the leaders of the enemy who have a deep opertational understanding of enemy forces, tactics and logistics.

that type of deep intel is important.






Actually it did, the casuality rate in Iraq is miniscule compared to nearly every other armed conflict in history.

please show me where my assessment is wrong.

we lost more people in 1 day in each of the 3 major conflicts WW1, WW2, and the Civil war than we have in nearly 5 years in iraq.

I completely disagree. It doesn't help our enemies one iota if it is public knowledge that America does not engage in torture. It is a public relations coup, when our enemies know that we do engage in torture. That's where our enemy has us by the short hairs: propaganda and perception. Their ability to recruit and incite is directly commensurate with our very public gaffes; not to mention our history and foreign policy.



This isn't the proper thread to get deep into this, but I invite your debate on one of the open Iraq threads. Suffice it to say that you are correct in your casualty count, though it has been brought up on numerous occasions that modern medical technology has played a great role in your statement. But we have now been in Iraq for longer than WWII lasted, with no end or success in sight..........

Maybe our future enemies will believe only 85% of their prisoners (us) don't need to be tortured. Maybe that number will make them feel as righteous as you.

GA, your argument seems to be that because our enemies won't abide by them, there should be no rules of war. Or worst case, abide by the ones they can't find an exception to.

Our enemies can make every argument you make for torture. Our enemies can make the same argument to use WMD (we've killed more people in the history of man with WMD), attacks against non-combatants, and overall douchebaggery. It would be easy to justify those types of actions based on our historical record. If we want to make exceptions to the agreements we've signed, so can everybody else. And our enemies will not lose any support they might have otherwise lost because they are simply playing by the rules the same way we are.

So again - I see your point and people who view our usage of torture like you. If I were the guy in the ticking time bomb scenario, I might use torture. But I would be willing to go to jail because it is illegal and America doesn't tolerate it. I shouldn't deserve the blanket immunity you want to give interrogators which I could only imagine needs to exist because the interrogators could be wrong. I mean really, who is going to jail an interrogator that used torture that proved to save lives?

No,

My arguement is based on the reality that

THERE ARE NO RULES IN WAR

the only rules are those we impose on ourselves, and I am all for abiding by the ones we have.

you dont honestly think for a moment that us being nice to them will make them play nice too do you?

before the "occupation" it was our support for israel, before that it was colonialism, before that it was the "infidel crusaders" this is not a civilized enemy.

as far as the rules of war which set do you seem to follow today?

the GC is pretty friggin' clear about what to do with the current enemy...

.45 ACP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP




and you would be wrong ,

at least one colonel was removed from duty for threatening an insurgent with his sidearm, the information I believe saved quite a few of his men from harm but he was still forced to retire, I will have to find a source it was about 2 years ago if I remember.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, McCain has stated that it isn't about them; it's about us. Sucks to be civilized, don't it?

Do you agree with McCain's position? (at least it was his position before his secret meeting with some senators.)

Are his reasons valid for voting against this bill?

So, a torture method is torture if the army does it, but the same torture method isn't torture if the CIA carries it out. Let's face the facts here. He is the presumptive nominee, a bare one at that whose conservative base hates him. A vote with the democrats on this one would've made him look bad. He sold his principles so that he could do a nuance dance on this one and tyr to wiggle out of it. Torture is torture, Clintonesque "it depends" situations to the contrary.

The second line of reasoning is bunk too. It's already illegal, so we can't make it illegal again? Really, well if it's already illegal, then what would be wrong with doing so again? There are "other" methods that he doesn't want to restrict the CIA from using? If so, what are they? Or are such method s as imaginary as a "secret plan" to win Vietnam?
O


What are the political implications of this vote for a Presidential Candidate who has been outspoken regarding his views on techniques like waterboarding?

The chest thumping debates were awful to see. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they didn't waterboard themselves to prove how friendly and fun it is. The political implication is that the candidate who acts the "strongest" and who has the quickest reflex to disregad the laws of our nation and international protocol, the more likely they can ride the torture myth to victory.

Are his reasons valid for voting against this bill?

I would say the issue itself is somewhat pointless. Its more of a political icon issue I think then anything real. I mean what is someone going to do in order to support such? Is the government going to come forward and release real detailed reports on the effects of torture used currently? I find this prospect highly unlikely and furthermore again its just a dubious political hot button at this point. From a personal perspective I could see the use of torture against well known and highly wanted terrorists to help get the large amounts of information they posses, but torture used in the war on terror itself is highly suspect, clouded and truly not all to transparent as to who or why or how a person may be eligible for torture under U.S responsibility.

What are the political implications of this vote for a Presidential Candidate who has been outspoken regarding his views on techniques like waterboarding?

See above but I doubt again that its really anything more then a political hot button. How many people really can speak on what torture policies the U.S uses to any real effect. I am sorry if the use of the word torture sounds bad but people like Osama bin laden design plans to kill untold amounts of Americans, I would say chiefly the designs are on civilians. The very nature of such organizations run by such people pose a serious enough threat in a conventional matter without concerning issues like biological, chemical or nuclear weapons use. Yet I really doubt that this will be a talking point, instead it will probably be something akin to obama and his stance on never being a muslim, its just *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Not even close.

There was no vote on banning waterboarding, unlike the topic title would indicate. They voted to apply the Army manual interrogation methods for all interrogators. And I can see some definite problems with this idea. For starters, it was created by the military for the military. If this were to pass, would the CIA and FBI be required to vet inquiries that deviate from 'the manual' through military channels, even if such tactics are neither abusive nor humiliating? Apparently so. It is necessary for all interrogators to defer to high-ranking military commanders for approval of all procedure which differs in any way from what is stated in the manual. The CIA and FBI are supposed to answer to the justice and state departments, not the DOD.

Furthermore, there have been some problems with this manual. It might wash for certain facilities, like the Iraqi prisons that McCain referenced in the debate, but high-profile interrogation facilities no. Interrogation is not something that fits into a Congressionally-mandated doctrine. It isn’t a hard science, each person is individual. Mustang, who is the forum expert on this matter and has always, absolutely and positively always been outspoken against torture and abusive tactics, also finds this manual problematic. I’ve heard it described this way by an intelligence officer:

“If my goal is to get to Los Angeles, the interrogation doctrine tells me which route to take, but it doesn't tell me the type of car I ought to drive, the speed at which I drive, when and where I pull over to eat, or even what side of the road I can drive on. Interrogations in a doctrinal context have similar variables. Approach is the mindset, techniques are the methods used to go down that avenue of approach. This law refers to "treatment and techniques", and I don't think Congress is synced up with what Army doctrine can bring to the statute “

McCain does support an absolute ban on waterboarding and other such tactics, and drafted and promoted legislation to forbid it in 2006, and it was passed. The portion regarding abuse encompassed not only military personnel but all US interrogation personnel, anywhere:



If the above was too vague the solution is pretty simple. Make it less vague and forbid exclusively the use of certain tactics. NOT simply lump a document created specifically for the military and apply it to other agencies with different responsibilities and command structures.

I think this is a good idea, gone about in a very bad way. A bit like doing some necessary eye surgery with a bone saw. What the interrogation facilities need is oversight and accountability, legal people at all sites to ensure that techniques used during interrogation are appropriate and not abusive.



What he doesn't want is for the CIA and FBI to have to publish their interrogation methods because it would obviously compromise their effectiveness. He does want waterboarding to be illegal, and it is (via the aforementioned act). He also wants oversight to prevent abuse. He just doesn't want the CIA and FBI interrogation tactics to be public knowledge, and he stated this as his reason for veto on the Senate floor, as a matter of public record. He was correct to have vetoed this, IMO.