Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21  
    1. WWII vets do not have a single clue as to what interrogation methods are used, because they don't have active security clearances. They only know what they read in the newspaper.

    2. Current interrogation methods are classified at a MINIMUM of Confidential.

    3. Different interrogation methods are used for different individuals, whichever one they respond the best to.

    4. Some techniques walk the fine line, but after having been interrogated by our forces (in training) that as long as I could think, I could resist the line of questioning. Sometimes my thinking broke down (again, it's classified so I can't discuss HOW my thinking broke down) and I provided them with the information they were asking. Not what they "wanted to hear" but what I knew.
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post

    (snip)

    Your lack of study of the Geneva Conventions is duly noted.
    As is yours:

    "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

    That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    That of carrying arms openly;

    That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

    Most terrorists don't fit that mold.

    Thanks for playing...we have a lovely parting gift for you - a home water boarding kit.
  3. #23  
    Probably the most extensive description of the inhumanity of government sponsored torture and interrogation methods was compiled by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel Prize winning treatise "The Gulag Archipelago". Just as warmongers who never served in the military are lacking insight into what they are pushing others towards, so too are torture fanboys (if they have have never read this book) lacking insight into what they are wanting to subject others to. I highly recommend it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Probably the most extensive description of the inhumanity of government sponsored torture and interrogation methods was compiled by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel Prize winning treatise "The Gulag Archipelago". Just as warmongers who never served in the military are lacking insight into what they are pushing others towards, so too are torture fanboys (if they have have never read this book) lacking insight into what they are wanting to subject others to. I highly recommend it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
    It's a great book - really more about communism, the police state, and forced labor camps.

    Thanks for trying to insert it in here, where it is not relevant.

    Comparing the early to mid Soviet gov't to the current US? Sure, they are sooooo similar.

    Is there any reasoning person left in this thread?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Most terrorists don't fit that mold.
    According to you? Something you received training in while serving in uniform?

    Thanks for playing...we have a lovely parting gift for you - a home water boarding kit.
    Again, smugly treating war as if it's a college football rivalry. You also continue to confuse me and anyone who may agree with me with friends of the enemy, in which case, you're your own worst enemy.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    It's a great book - really more about communism, the police state, and forced labor camps.

    Thanks for trying to insert it in here, where it is not relevant.

    Comparing the early to mid Soviet gov't to the current US? Sure, they are sooooo similar.

    Is there any reasoning person left in this thread?
    Governmental institutionalization of torture to interrogate those who have not been charged with a crime. And wanting to call it something else, not torture. Thats the line that was crossed with the Soviet regime, thats the line you want us to cross now. I am sorry if you dont see this, but I hope some here do.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    According to you? Something you received training in while serving in uniform?
    Actually, you'd be surprised just how much training on the Geneva Convention, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Rules of Engagement that all members of the military receive prior to serving in a combat environment. The reasoning behind it is the "Strategic LCpl" and "Three Block War" concept that has been discussed at length in the Marine Corps.
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    According to you? Something you received training in while serving in uniform?



    Again, smugly treating war as if it's a college football rivalry. You also continue to confuse me and anyone who may agree with me with friends of the enemy, in which case, you're your own worst enemy.
    Hardly smug at all. A serious issue that needs serious reasoning.

    If you are going to be the self-asserted expert of the Geneva Convention, and it's applicability, you might want to actually understand what you are talking about.

    By the way, there is no "war" in Iraq. It's in "peacekeeping mode/civil war moderator mode". Again, we like to through that term "war" around because of it's heft, but let's be clear what is going on there.

    (of course, the label doesn't change the fact people are dying every day).

    But of course, we can't, because of own politcal info-tainment culture just wouldn't be the same...
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    Actually, you'd be surprised just how much training on the Geneva Convention, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Rules of Engagement that all members of the military receive prior to serving in a combat environment. The reasoning behind it is the "Strategic LCpl" and "Three Block War" concept that has been discussed at length in the Marine Corps.
    What has military training to do with 'mikec'?
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    What has military training to do with 'mikec'?
    F- for reading comprehension for me... I assumed based on your statement that he had in fact served in the military... Sorry...

    I stand by the fact that those of us that have served has received what I would call a "metric ****-ton" of training on it before we were even close to going into a theatre...
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    F- for reading comprehension for me... I assumed based on your statement that he had in fact served in the military... Sorry...
    Not a problem, LOL. In fact, it's quite refreshing to see your integrity which was really the point of my post. Yours may be a position I disagree with, but at least you can be respected. Grew up in a Marine household and knew the M1 Garand rifle drill by the time I was 5. Honor, country, and protecting one's fellow man are the values that some internet fake soldiers will never be able to lay claim to.
  12. #32  
    Based on my understanding of the Geneva Convention (from my own studies and from the posts in this thread), the AVERAGE insurgent does not qualify for protection under it.

    IMO Torture is like a nuclear bomb....you should probably never use it (and is probably not as useful as other techniques), but to keep face you need the enemy to know that all options are on the table. I agree that in MOST cases it won't yield useful information, but then again MOST of the people we interrogate are BAD (if not sympathetic to the jihadist cause) so who gives a crap if their pain didn't yield useful information (on to the next detainee). I guess I'm a heartless slug.

    Even if 9 out of 10 insurgents don't yield valuable information, that’s still 10% useful information (very basic statistical analysis . The ransom for that information was a couple of days of discomfort for 10 scumbags. Worth it to me....but again, I'm just a heartless slug.

    All is fair in love and War!
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Not a problem, LOL. In fact, it's quite refreshing to see your integrity which was really the point of my post. Yours may be a position I disagree with, but at least you can be respected. Grew up in a Marine household and knew the M1 Garand rifle drill by the time I was 5. Honor, country, and protecting one's fellow man are the values that some internet fake soldiers will never be able to lay claim to.
    "FAKE SOLDIERS: <----you can't say stuff like that anymore
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    Based on my understanding of the Geneva Convention (from my own studies and from the posts in this thread), the AVERAGE insurgent does not qualify for protection under it.
    Mostly correct... HOWEVER, if they are organized and wear some sort of uniform (the definition of uniform is interpreted liberally) than they should be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention. That's why the military has lawyers assigned to it - to intrepert the fine line cases. If there's any doubt in the trigger puller's mind they will generally default to POW until the JAG/commander makes the call.

    IMO Torture is like a nuclear bomb....you should probably never use it (and is probably not as useful as other techniques), but to keep face you need the enemy to know that all options are on the table. I agree that in MOST cases it won't yield useful information, but then again MOST of the people we interrogate are BAD (if not sympathetic to the jihadist cause) so who gives a crap if their pain didn't yield useful information (on to the next detainee). I guess I'm a heartless slug.
    Not a heartless slug, but I would say torture is worse than a nuclear bomb. There are close to 2.3 billion checks, double checks, and authorizations required before nuclear weapons are used. A young 20-something HUMINT guy can accidentally cross the line and use torture. That's why its worse, because it has the potential to be used inadvertantly, and relatively often. Without getting too into the weeds, torture doesn't yield useful information - but things very close to torture do. That's why the US doesn't use torture. Does it happen? Probably, but it's more of a young guy crossing the line. Luckily it is often quickly identified by the junior officers/staff nco's and the problem is corrected. At least on the military side, I can't speak to the "other" side...

    Even if 9 out of 10 insurgents don't yield valuable information, that’s still 10% useful information (very basic statistical analysis . The ransom for that information was a couple of days of discomfort for 10 scumbags. Worth it to me....but again, I'm just a heartless slug.

    All is fair in love and War!
    How can you tell what is useful and what isn't? That's the problem. It's not as reliable as other means. Using your analogy, you get 10 different stories, one is correct. All of which came through torture. Would you trust young men and women's lives on that info? Not me.
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    How can you tell what is useful and what isn't? That's the problem. It's not as reliable as other means. Using your analogy, you get 10 different stories, one is correct. All of which came through torture. Would you trust young men and women's lives on that info? Not me.

    I meant 10% turns out to be useful once it is analyzed by CTU

    The reason I believe torture shouldn't be taken off the table completely is because if I was detained by an enemy and they tortured me for information I would lie for awhile then eventually give it up. I guess I figure most people will crack under pain (like me). Even if I didn't know anything useful to the enemy, they have really lost nothing by torturing me. I understand that most of these detainees don't know a whole lot about organized terrorism, which is why torture wouldn't be useful for them. But when you get a Kingpin who you KNOW has information, but won't talk after days of interrogation IMO its time to get out the water-board. I really honestly don't have a problem with it as long as it is used on the al-Zarqawi's of the terrorist world.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    "FAKE SOLDIERS: <----you can't say stuff like that anymore
    To be clear, I was referring to internet posers. No intent to slime, as Limbaugh has, those who have genuinely and honorably served.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #37  
    [QUOTE=lifes2short;1357868]Your efforts brought us here. You first.
    [quote]

    I am not the one making accusations of torture.

    Those who accuse need to make their case, not the other way around.

    This was never my statement or intent. Secret prisons will be found to be crimes against humanity, however, within the next 10 years, IMO.
    Time will tell, until then...speculation.

    Civilian is still a classification, as previously posted.
    An unlawful combatant is not a civilian.

    Until a competent tribunal rules on their status as 'privileged' or unprivileged' combatants, they are classified as prisoners of war.
    Which is why military tribunals have been in place almost from the outset on the war on terrorism.

    Also, as previously posted, their status may be graded down to civilian status which entitles them to 4th Geneva Convention treatment, which is where you began foaming at the the mouth at me.
    The status of anyone held in custody can change depending on the circumstances that come to light. What is your point here?

    Your lack of study of the Geneva Conventions is duly noted.
    This coming from the same person who can't tell the difference between a noun or adjective.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I am not the one making accusations of torture.

    Those who accuse need to make their case, not the other way around.
    What independent open-review process has been authorized? When those involved are so consumed with guilt that the only available method for correction is leaking to the media, we must be winning over the hearts and minds of our enemies in droves, correct? Attempts to explain away the realities of this closed system of 'justice' are cheerfully ignored.



    My apologies, in advance, if these images seem offensive to any, but they represent the reality from which some make smug jokes.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    F- for reading comprehension for me... I assumed based on your statement that he had in fact served in the military... Sorry...

    I stand by the fact that those of us that have served has received what I would call a "metric ****-ton" of training on it before we were even close to going into a theatre...
    I have served. Life2Short likes to poke fun and quote things he does not understand.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    More name-calling <yawn>
    As usual, you drew first blood in this thread with your snide, sarcastic, condescending attitude. Learn to act more civil and I'll happily reciprocate.

    Barye started this thread questioning the effectiveness of torture when interrogating and even mentioned the WWII vets. I'm reasonably sure the context in which he mentioned those vets was similar to mine - yet, you went out of your way to ridicule me.

    Try between 3.5 to 8 million, with most figures closer to the 3 million figure.
    My apologies, you are correct. Actually it seems more toward 8 million killed and/or MIA, but I included POWs and those that served by mistake. But much less than 23MM. That is what I get for looking that up on my Treo (I'm traveling in London, Helsinki, and Copenhagen) and relying on Pocket IE to properly render a table! I should have checked again when I returned to my hotel room and had a proper browser/internet connection before I responded. Nonetheless, be it 3MM or 8MM...that is a lot of unwilling Nazis.

    That being said, I don't think I've ever studied a modern soldier, from any army, with the exception of the kamikazes, that "wanted to die".

    I think you are confused with the purpose of "wanting to kill the enemy" with "wanting to kill oneself in order to kill the enemy". Two entirely different philosophies that drive a soldier to do battle.
    Agreed on soldiers not wanting to die...I know I didn't! But you certainly accept that risk when you go into combat and know that you may well die and are prepared to die for your country. But it's neither here nor there...both Nazis and Islamofacist were/are extremist.

    They were extreme for entirely different reasons than that of your average jihadist.
    Whatever. One killed 6MM Jews and the other thought nothing off lopping off heads POW camps or killing civilians in China. They were extreme and they did unspeakable things that would make most men want to exact unspeakable revenge upon them. The point I am trying to make is that we did not exact that revenge via torture. And we shouldn't start now. Period.

    Well, torture is torture.....but the question is "what" is torture.
    You seem to have a definition in mind, perhaps you can share it with us all. I posted what I thought the Senate used as a definition back in post #14 and you responded in your usual wise-a$$ way and changed what you were looking for in post #2 to "...what is considered painful treatment..." instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing.

    And many do not accept their argument that the "new enemy" is specifically entitled to Geneva Convention provisions simply because they do not reach the criteria needed to qualify for those protections - even though there is no proof that the administration is treating them any differently than regular POWs.
    Many = Neocons. Odd once again how we're supposed to consider this the "war on terror" when it suits the neocons well but when it comes to the Geneva Convention suddenly things are "grey". Well the rest of the world does not think that it is grey at all and that is the friggin' point of adhering to the Geneva Convention. If you don't want our boys tortured than you have to hold the moral high ground to minimize that likelihood. Once that can of worms is opened you'll see more and more torture of our captured troops.

    I won't even go near your "theory" that the administration does not condone or has not committed torture. You'll just spin whatever pictures are posted or testimonials to your liking.

    Considering a good part of the world is run by those with little or no morals, I would take the remark as a compliment.
    I'm not surprised. I'd expect nothing less from a less than honorable man.

    I think torture is something the US should never engage in.
    OK. So then you're entire antogonistic rant was nothing more than being a MF? Again, love that whole "heatlhy discourse" thing we have going on here with you.

    And the question is, why do you think we are not "above it all" now? Because Amnesty International says so?

    I, for one, feel this country has acted with great restraint in the wake of 9/11.
    The rest of the world disagrees. Trust me. I was just out to dinner with Brits, Fins, Danes and Swedes over the last few days and believe me, we're not viewed as a country with "great restraint" by any measure.

    The "world" "liked us" then because we saved their collective hides, but the world has never really "liked" us because we stand for things that the many in the world, if not the majority, does not particularly care for.

    We are the proverbial bull in the china shop and will always be viewed as such.
    We probably are forever going to be considered exactly that. But I disagree that we always were. Why would so many immigrants flock to the US if they hated us so much? And I'm not talking Mexican's necessarily - I mean pre-WWI and WWII.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/11/2007 at 05:23 PM.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions