Phosphorous in Fallujah (video)

[ViperPilot 0]

Well there's a difference if you only have a vague thought that the guy might know where it is and if you know he knows where it is b/c you caught him running away while his buddy w/ the IED got away. And yeah, breaking his ribs will work when you radio it to someone else who checks it out and then doesn't find anything. He'll get the message real quick that you're not fucking around.

[ReBirth 0]

Tough. Morally, I'm opposed to torture at all. But I gotta admit, if I were there and found somone in that exact situation you described, I'd probably crack a rib myself. And then regret it for the rest of my life.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Aside from the moral issues, that's the real practical issue. Torture doesn't work.

It doesn't work??? How can you say that? Torture has been used for centuries to obtain information. If it didn't work, it wouldn't have stood the test of time...

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Now of course I agree that this is the perfect scenario and people can get out of hand.

Without external oversight, people *will* get out of hand. Quite a lot, actually.

I'm not saying that there isn't oversight, but I'd feel much more comfortable if the policy, along with enforcement procedures, was documented and made public.

Quote

Hopefully the MPs and skycops are making good judgements on who is a bystander and who is criminal.

This is exactly what makes me terribly uneasy. I don't think they should have the discretion to abuse detainees at will.

Quote

The arsenal of legal methods does not usually work in a time sensitive case.

What are you talking about? Do you even know how professional interrogators operate?

Quote

Many times, no politically correct/you can have a lawyer interrogation is going to work in situtations like that.

Correction: you don't know how professional interrogators operate. Let me clue you in: it's got nothing to do with attorneys, daisies, and lollipops.

Quote

That guy gets captured...boo hoo if his jaw gets dislocated.

Would you agree, then, with the same being done to our troops captured by the enemy?

Quote

how bout the intel situation above? Really want to not do anything to the guy keeping his mouth shut when a bunch of your friends are running out of time? Guess you gotta be in that situation to understand sometimes.

In the situation you provided, "twisting" isn't likely to yield good information. In fact, it can yield bad information, which, in many cases, is deadlier than none at all. Further, it's illegal.

As far as I know, most bust-the-door-down types of units don't include on-hand interrogators in their missions. If that's the case, then I certainly hope that those soldiers and marines get good training on effective techniques to get the information that they need.

Legal interrogation techniques work, plain and simple. And if you think something as obviously common as time-sensitivity is going to be an issue, then I suppose we should just toss all our tactical HUMINT assets down the shitter, because, as any field commander will tell you, tactical intelligence is time-sensitive by nature.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

And yeah, breaking his ribs will work when you radio it to someone else who checks it out and then doesn't find anything.

Your painting a scenario that is so remote and lacking in so many variables that it's moot, dude.

If you want to give carte blanche to troops to abuse anyone they detain for .001% of the scenarios where it might possibly be effective, then I've got a whole laundry list of similarly outrageous bullshit I can add to yours.

EDIT: Sorry for sounding so harsh. I've got sand in my vagina.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

Aside from the moral issues, that's the real practical issue. Torture doesn't work.

It doesn't work??? How can you say that? Torture has been used for centuries to obtain information. If it didn't work, it wouldn't have stood the test of time...

I'll be clear: torture is an ineffective interrogation tool because it yields inconsistent, inaccurate data, especially when compared to the methods we employ that conform to laws and treaties.

Your logic is highly flawed, and I'd suggest you visit Google and do some searching on this subject to see why.

[billvon 3,109]

>Torture has been used for centuries to obtain information. If it didn't work,
>it wouldn't have stood the test of time...

It has stood the test of time because it a) gets people to say what you want them to say and b) allows you to get revenge at an official level.

Thousands of people were tortured until they admitted they were witches during the witchhunts in Europe and the US. You figure that means there were really hundreds of witches?

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Your logic is highly flawed, and I'd suggest you visit Google and do some searching on this subject to see why.

Ok, I've researched it. Torture does work.

Is it as effective as other methods? Not even close. Is it moral? That's debatable - I personally don't have an opinion on it yet. Does it work? Absolutely.

From what I read, there are primarily three types of torture.

Torture to punish - this is effective.
Torture to obtain confession - this is extremely ineffective.
Torture to obtain information - this is somewhat effective.

Just out of curiousity, why the 'R' in SERE school? If torture is so ineffective, why does the military place such an emphasis on training soldiers to resist it?

Don't you think the military has done more research on the subject (certainly more than a Google search) than anybody on this thread? I'm sure the CIA isn't wasting their time on something they view as ineffective.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[jeiber 0]

Quote

You figure that means there were really hundreds of witches?

People used leaches as a cure all. I figure that means there were ignorant people using methods they didn't understand. In some situations, it worked, so they applied the methods to every situation.

I would hope that, along with medicine, psychology has evolved from what is was in the dark ages.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Thousands of people were tortured until they admitted they were witches during the witchhunts in Europe and the US. You figure that means there were really hundreds of witches?

It's very possible.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Flagler/03FlaglerFLAG01120605.htm

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Aside from the moral issues, that's the real practical issue. Torture doesn't work.

It doesn't work??? How can you say that? Torture has been used for centuries to obtain information. If it didn't work, it wouldn't have stood the test of time...

I'll be clear: torture is an ineffective interrogation tool because it yields inconsistent, inaccurate data, especially when compared to the methods we employ that conform to laws and treaties.

Your logic is highly flawed, and I'd suggest you visit Google and do some searching on this subject to see why.

How would you feel about taking a couple of bad guys for a helicopter ride? After you fly around you blindfold both and start asking questions. For starters, you throw one of them out (3' hover). He yells so loud, his friend immediately tells you his life story. This method was used in Vietnam. No physical harm came to the bad guys. If you convince someone you are going to quickly kill them and they believe it, most likely they will talk. No physical torture. Holding some insurgent by the neck and indicating to him "talk or die", but not following through is fair game down at squad level. Then you can pass him up to battalion level.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,109]

>Torture to obtain confession - this is extremely ineffective.

This is almost 100% effective. Torture someone long enough, they will say anything.

>Torture to obtain information - this is somewhat effective.

You must have gotten these two backwards. "Saying anything" is not conducive to getting information.

>If torture is so ineffective, why does the military place such an
>emphasis on training soldiers to resist it?

Same reason we teach PLF's to students. Because it's easy to prevent injuries if you put even a little effort into PLFing. Doesn't mean that parachutes are likely to break your legs.

>Don't you think the military has done more research on the subject
>(certainly more than a Google search) than anybody on this thread?

Ah yes. I am reminded of all the people here who said "Don't you think the military/CIA KNOWS Saddam Hussein has WMD's? We have the best intelligence in the world!"

But in any case - if they think it works, then for god's sakes, stand for your convictions and say "we torture people because it works." We should stop taking the coward's way out.

[billvon 3,109]

>It's very possible.

This would fall firmly under the category of saying something dumb to try to win the argument. You're smarter than that.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>It's very possible.

This would fall firmly under the category of saying something dumb to try to win the argument. You're smarter than that.

Then apparently you have never been to Salem, Massachusetts, Witch Capitol of the World. I learned there are literally thousands of people today that consider themselves witches. All I'm saying is if there's that many today, it's not inconceivable there were hundreds, and perhaps thousands back then.

I've been to Salem and I gotta tell you, Bill, and I'm not superstitious, but I had some really strange things happen while I was there. Eerie, really. I hope you have the opportunity to spend some time there. That place gave me the creeps.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Ok, I've researched it. Torture does work.

OK, my contention was its lack of effectiveness with regard to interrogation and collection of intelligence data. I think we're in the same boat there.

Quote

Just out of curiousity, why the 'R' in SERE school? If torture is so ineffective, why does the military place such an emphasis on training soldiers to resist it?

Resistance training isn't focused on torture, but it's a component of it. Are you familiar with the Code of Conduct? As far as your question, that's a good place to start. But SERE's something about which I feel is inappropriate to get into much detail here.

Quote

Don't you think the military has done more research on the subject (certainly more than a Google search) than anybody on this thread? I'm sure the CIA isn't wasting their time on something they view as ineffective.

Know that I've got an in here. Whatever the reasons are for the recent push for sanctioning/legitimizing torture (and note, it's neither the CIA nor INSCOM making the push), it's got little to do with collecting data via interrogation, in my opinion.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

How would you feel about taking a couple of bad guys for a helicopter ride? If you convince someone you are going to quickly kill them and they believe it, most likely they will talk. No physical torture.

I wouldn't agree with it, for two reasons:

1. I wouldn't want the enemy feel justified or empowered to do the same to our troops.
2. It violates Geneva Convention III.

Quote

Holding some insurgent by the neck and indicating to him "talk or die", but not following through is fair game down at squad level. Then you can pass him up to battalion level.

Where do you get that idea? Fair game? Sounds like fodder for more abuse scandals to me...

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I'm sure the CIA isn't wasting their time on something they view as ineffective.

You want to think about that one? They probably didn't view what they were doing before 9/11 and in gathering intel about Iraq to be ineffective. But it sure was.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the CIA isn't wasting their time on something they view as ineffective.

You want to think about that one? They probably didn't view what they were doing before 9/11 and in gathering intel about Iraq to be ineffective. But it sure was.

Q. How do we know the CIA wasn't involved in the Kennedy and King assassinations?

A. Because they're dead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the CIA isn't wasting their time on something they view as ineffective.

You want to think about that one? They probably didn't view what they were doing before 9/11 and in gathering intel about Iraq to be ineffective. But it sure was.

I thought Bush manipulated the Intel? Now you are saying the Intel was bad?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I thought Bush manipulated the Intel? Now you are saying the Intel was bad?

Those two things are not exclusive from one another.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the CIA isn't wasting their time on something they view as ineffective.

You want to think about that one? They probably didn't view what they were doing before 9/11 and in gathering intel about Iraq to be ineffective. But it sure was.

I thought Bush manipulated the Intel? Now you are saying the Intel was bad?

If they were competent they wouldn't have allowed Bush to manipulate them (actually I doubt Bush was smart enough, more likely Rummy or Cheney).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I thought Bush manipulated the Intel? Now you are saying the Intel was bad?

Those two things are not exclusive from one another.

So Bush got bad intel and then he manipulated it?

[ReBirth 0]

Correct...he got good AND bad intel, and threw out the good stuff because it didn't fit his agenda. We've been over this a million times now. I know you don't believe it, but I can't believe you don't understand what we've been saying all along. So why ask these silly questions?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Correct...he got good AND bad intel, and threw out the good stuff because it didn't fit his agenda. We've been over this a million times now. I know you don't believe it, but I can't believe you don't understand what we've been saying all along. So why ask these silly questions?

Sorry, man. Just trying to remember how it goes. He threw out all the good intel and then manipulated the bad, because he knew which was which, right? Gotcha.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Correct...he got good AND bad intel, and threw out the good stuff because it didn't fit his agenda. We've been over this a million times now. I know you don't believe it, but I can't believe you don't understand what we've been saying all along. So why ask these silly questions?

How is it that "YOU" know this? Seems to me that most (Senators/Reps (Democrat/Republican) & foreign leaders) were on-board with this thing in the beginning. They all believed the intel. It may have in fact been bad intel but that does not mean that anyone manipulated it. Are you an insider? Secret squirrel type? Or are you just parroting what Howard Dean is screaming during his lunatic fits.