America is at war
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote
Yes... your country certainly _did_ hand him over on purpose...... and
No!
it didn't come form a subordinate... and like I already pointed out ...
from the hearings it's been the USA standard operating procedure since
implementation of the office of Homeland Security.

Why would we do that?

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"?

I believe it is a combo of the two.

I used to train horses. I got excellent results by *never* hurting the horse
but instead simply convincing it that sooner or later it wound have to do my
bidding. This is a tried and proven technique. Takes more time but the
results - a horse eager to obey -are well worth it. If I got a particular
hard case I would never, ever hurt it. I'd just trip it to the ground and
tie it there, set on it and pet it, offer treats and water, sometimes for
hours until it finally understood that I had complete control and gave up.
Was that torture? Some might think so but the alternative was the glue
factory.

There in no doubt that some soft heads call the techniques that are
routinely and systematically used by pro interrogators "torture", but I do
not. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in control.
OTOH, I disapprove of inflicting pain if only because doing so usually
strengthens the victims resistance instead of reducing it. He may tell you
what you want to hear to stop the pain but will not change his beliefs so
whatever info he provides is likely to lead you astray - intentionally. I
think our interrogators are as good at breaking men as I was at breaking
horses. If a prisoner tries to hurt them they may react and smak him like I
might a horse that bit me but it is a mistake to do so - to admit he is
capable of hurting or even angering you - soo it would not be "policy".
Quite the opposite.

Second, we all know there are sadists who enjoy hurting others and that many
find their way into the military. I don't doubt they have hurt some
prisoners. However their actions are *not* US policy - as witness the tiny
percent of prisoners who are truly abused. A few dozen, even a few 100 out
of the tens of thousands captured shows that it is not commonplace. And,
when proven, the miscreants are punished.

admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest
levels...

On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy, et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody. Degrade, frighten, discomfit and discourage them,
sure, but torture, no. Rummy says 'I stand 10 hours/day so I don't think it
torture to make a prisoner do the same' and all the softheads say he
condoned torture. Jeeze, there's plenty of real things to blame him for,
like not giving the generals enough men to prevent looting after defeating
Saddam. It's like the Neocoms have fixated on Clinton's BJ.

You should know that I am no supporter of theirs. I believe this whole Iraq
war was the biggest blunder in US history and that we were suckered into it
by lies and propaganda just like we were suckered into Vietnam. I could
believe *almost* anything bad said about them - anything except that Bush
ever got a BJ g.

But I not believe that CIA or other professionals routinly inflict pain on
prisoners, or send them to other countries to be tortured, if for no greater
reason than that it is unproductive to do so - the equivelent of a pro
trainer beating a horse. Police and other LEOs are a different matter. If
they can beat a confession out of you they can declare a crime solved and
get a gold star by their name. But if an intel officer is told that his
victim's gang is camped at XXX by beating the guy, then our patrol gets
ambushed on the way there, his career is likely to "suffer" ... perhaps in
the form of a fragging. So ....

America is at war
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote,
Vito wrote:
I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

Unfortunately, we did. We've been doing this for years, and prior to
Bushco. We'd send them to Egypt for example, knowing full well that
they used "more aggressive" techniques to get information. Sad really.

Sending somebody somewhere knowing they will be tortured is quite different
than sending them there to be tortured.

What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I
tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

It's a bit worse than that. They will force someone to neither stand
nor sit for hours at a time... somewhere in between. This can be
extremely painful.

Cite?

I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story.
They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

It generally gives you nothing useful, as the prisoner will say
anything to stop the pain. The point is that people are fallible and
they resort to things that don't really work to satisfy those higher
in rank or authority.

Sure, but again suppose I beat on a guy until he tells me where his buddies
are hideing. I eagerly tell my boss and a patrol is sent to catch them too.
But the patrol gets ambushed and shot up because that info was wrong. I'd
prolly get fragged.

America is at war
 

OzOne wrote
"Vito" scribbled thusly:

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

You'd be incorrect there!

Why would we do that, knowing that any info they provided was unreliable?
Doesn't make sense.

America is at war
 

And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"?


Vito wrote:
I believe it is a combo of the two.

I used to train horses. I got excellent results by *never* hurting the horse
but instead simply convincing it that sooner or later it wound have to do my
bidding. This is a tried and proven technique.

Ever heard of "Behavioral psychology"? What you are describing is a sort
of rudimentary behaviorism. It is indeed a "tried & proven technique"
and one that can be vastly improved & made more effective by a little study.


... If I got a particular
hard case I would never, ever hurt it. I'd just trip it to the ground and
tie it there, set on it and pet it, offer treats and water, sometimes for
hours until it finally understood that I had complete control and gave up.

I think you have a bizarre idea of what "hurt" consists of. Please
describe in detail exactly how you trip a horse to the ground, tie it
up, and sit on it, without inflicting any pain.

BTW pain is an excellent tool for modifying behavior. However it can
easily be overused, and of course there is the psychological question of
whether or not it is being applied for a gainful purpose, or for the
sadistic pleasure of the person inflicting it.


Was that torture?

Not in my opinion. However I think it's pretty obvious that you'd
benefit from a beginner psych course or two at the local community college.




There in no doubt that some soft heads call the techniques that are
routinely and systematically used by pro interrogators "torture",

Uh huh.

What would you call it when an interrogator stubs out a cigarrette on
the eyelids of the person being questioned? When the person being
questioned is tied up, and has his head forecfully held under water
until he is unconsious? When he has his arms tied behind his back and
has his full weight suspeneded from his wrists until his elbows and
shoulders are not only dislocated but suffer permanent injury? When a
person being questioned is tied up and has an attack loosed upon him, so
that he suffers serious bite wounds on his head and other places?

I call this "torture" and it is documented to have been performed by
U.S. personnel. It is also not recommended by Army field intel manuals,
but is winked at all up & down the chain of command.



.. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in control.

Depending on the methods used, I wouldn't object to that either,
although sleep deprivation can have serious side effects and if taken to
an extreme would definitely be a torture on par with that listed above.

The basic question is not who we are fighting, but who we are ourselves.
Is the U.S. an evil despotism that tortures prisoners? Or is it a
civilized & moral nation that obeys international laws?

If you set aside your principles for convenience, you never had any
principles.


admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest
levels...


On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy, et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody.

Oh? Maybe you should go and find that patch of sand that Dave has his
head buried in... I'm sure he'll move over for you...

DSK

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Want some fun? Try
explaining to some $5/hr security guard that he cannot open your briefcase
because he is not cleared to inspect its classified contents, nor is his
boss or a local cop, that they'll have to call in the FBI.


It is obvious that you only operate on the fringes of "sensitive" work.

It is easy to explain to a (5$/hr) security guard that he cannot open your
briefcase. The security guards *do* get some training.


If you have ever had a problem, then you really need to look at yourself.
Why were you unable to convince the officer that the contents of your
briefcase were sensitive?


Regards



Donal
--

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
Ever heard of "Behavioral psychology"? What you are describing is a sort
of rudimentary behaviorism. It is indeed a "tried & proven technique"
and one that can be vastly improved & made more effective by a little
study.

Yes! Professional interrogators have done more than a little study and are
still honing skills.

I think you have a bizarre idea of what "hurt" consists of. Please
describe in detail exactly how you trip a horse to the ground, tie it
up, and sit on it, without inflicting any pain.

It's called a "running W". Soft latigo leather straps are put just above
the rear hooves and a 2" thick (so it don't cut) rope collar around the
neck. A rope (ok "line") is run from the collar to the right hoof, back up
between the forelegs to the collar then to the left rear and finally back to
the collar in a W fashion. You hold the horses halter in your left hand and
pull the W rope with your right gradually drawing the horses rear legs under
him til he nearly sits. Then you simply push his shoulder with yours to
gently topple him over, holding his head off the ground with the halter.
Finally, tie the end of the W line to the halter to assure he doesn't rub
his eye struggling.


BTW pain is an excellent tool for modifying behavior. ....

Sure, as in spanking a kid. But not to extract truthful information. Thus a
guard may beat up a prisoner to 'modify his behavior' but never to get info.
The prisoner controls that situation - the beating stops when the bad
behavior stops.

What would you call it when an interrogator stubs out a cigarrette on
the eyelids of the person being questioned? When the person being
questioned is tied up, and has his head forecfully held under water
until he is unconsious? When he has his arms tied behind his back and
has his full weight suspeneded from his wrists until his elbows and
shoulders are not only dislocated but suffer permanent injury? When a
person being questioned is tied up and has an attack loosed upon him, so
that he suffers serious bite wounds on his head and other places?

Held back-down on a table while water is poured up his nose. Hands & feet
duct taped they tossed in a swimming pool (or cess pool)? Blindfolded then
tossed out of a helo.

I call this "torture" and it is documented to have been performed by
U.S. personnel. ....

When? These once common tortures have been abandoned for decades because
they yield *unreliable* info. I have seen no evidence that US interogators
are doing any of these things and I doubt they do so because they are
counter productive in that they harden the prisoners resolve to be
uncooperative. He may tell you anything to stop the pain - anything but the
truth.

.. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting
the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first
themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in
control.

.... sleep deprivation .... if taken to
an extreme would definitely be a torture on par with that listed above.

I disagree - unless pain is used to keep them awake.

Is the U.S. an evil despotism that tortures prisoners? Or is it a
civilized & moral nation that obeys international laws?

Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody. In fact even relatively
minor excursions over the line are routinely punished. We are obeying
international law. The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.
International law says we can shoot them. It doesn't limit how long we hold
them before doing so.

admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest levels...


On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy,
et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody.

Oh? Maybe you should go and find that patch of sand that Dave has his
head buried in... I'm sure he'll move over for you...

Better yet, why not provide us the evidence that makes you think otherwise.

America is at war
 

OzOne wrote
"Vito" scribbled thusly:
Why would we do that, knowing that any info they provided was unreliable?
Doesn't make sense.

Because any information is what was wanted.
You forget Vito that the US is in Iraq because they took 'any
information' correct or otherwise to justify actions or intended
actions.

With the 'information' gathered by torture, they could arrest hundreds
and bomb more hundreds justifying it with 'information gained from
captive terrorists', most of whom were released wiithout charge, just
mentally scarred.

Are you suggesting that the President of the United States would have people
tortured to extract lies he could use to propagandize the American people??

Hmmm ... you have a point there.

America is at war
 

"Donal" wrote
It is obvious that you only operate on the fringes of "sensitive" work.

Never claimed otherwise.

It is easy to explain to a (5$/hr) security guard that he cannot open your
briefcase. The security guards *do* get some training.

Then why was one of my subordinates detained for 6 hours?

If you have ever had a problem, then you really need to look at yourself.

Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

America is at war
 

Vito wrote:
Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody.

That's because you haven't bothered to look, and keep both hands clapped
over your ears so you won't hear.

... We are obeying
international law.

No, we are not. The Bush Administration thinks 'interntional law' is for
pussies.



...The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.

Of course not.

International law says we can shoot them.

No, it does not.

Since you're not Dave, insisting that any & all evidence against your
statements is contrived & falsified leftist propaganda, I will humor you
and provide a few links. Since you *still* believe all that malarkey
about how the brave & noble Ho Chi Minh liberated Viet Nam and was
acclaimed by popular support, I doubt it will do any good.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

The whole thing stinks.

DSK