"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce

People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river. With others, the more pain you cause them the
more intransigent and unbreakable they become. Particularly if they feel
they are serving a higher cause, are somewhat masochistic anyway, and are
angry at being tortured by those whom they believe to be evil.

That being said, how can you distinguish between the varying degrees between
the extremes? And regardless of the "quality" of information one might
receive by torturing a prisoner, how does a Nation maintain the moral high
ground when it is willing to torture prisoners?

Win their hearts and minds -- and you cannot do that by force.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce

People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river.

Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great
detail.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:07:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce

People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river.

Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great
detail.


Actually, I doubt that any interrogators are inclined to believe any
unsupported statement made under "torture" whatever the definition.

At least the only statement I have read about the U.S. efforts seems
to say that they get a bit of information from "A" which correlates
with information from "B" which fits with NSA intercepts from "C" and
so on. As I remember the article, which said that after OBama was
fully briefed about the CIA activities he might change his mind,
refereed to correlation of information from as far afield as Thailand,
the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan and Spain.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:07:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce

People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to
get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river.

Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great
detail.


Actually, I doubt that any interrogators are inclined to believe any
unsupported statement made under "torture" whatever the definition.

At least the only statement I have read about the U.S. efforts seems
to say that they get a bit of information from "A" which correlates
with information from "B" which fits with NSA intercepts from "C" and
so on. As I remember the article, which said that after OBama was
fully briefed about the CIA activities he might change his mind,
refereed to correlation of information from as far afield as Thailand,
the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan and Spain.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


That's what they used for the "mastermind" of 9/11 or so they claimed. He
gave lots of information, most of it false. The previous adminstration
touted it as "essential" in "preventing" additional attacks. A load of crap.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:02:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



That's what they used for the "mastermind" of 9/11 or so they claimed. He
gave lots of information, most of it false. The previous adminstration
touted it as "essential" in "preventing" additional attacks. A load of crap.

You can't prove that. They destroyed the interrogation tapes.
A few months after 9-11 the feds in Chicago prevented a major attack
on America when they nabbed a terrorist. I recall that Bush touted
this arrest in a speech about how he was "keeping us safe" but I won't
try to prove it . You can believe it or not.
I think I read the account in the Trib, but won't swear to it.
Here's a pretty accurate description of the terrorist and how he was
apprehended. You want closer, get the official files and newspaper
accounts.
The terrorist was a 40 some year-old wino with a name like Jimmy Bob
Baker.
Not sure, but probably originally a Smokey Mountain cracker who came
to Chicago when he got his ass kicked too many times in Tennessee.
Used to be a lot of these southern winos here on Madison Street and
Uptown. They actually blended in well with the American Indian drunks
in the same places. Cherokee blood maybe.
Jimmy Bob was in the drunk tank and told another drunk "I'll blow them
****ers to hell."
The other drunk ratted this threat out to the cops, who brought in the
feds from the Chicago FBI office.
They had located a terrorist. Damn Sam!
A fed was put in the cell with Jimmy Bob to "infiltrate" the terrorist
organization. I'd like to talk to that fed. Must be a hell of a guy,
since I even have a hard time getting close to drunk crackers, and I
can play a pretty good low-life. Maybe he brought a bottle.
I haven't seen any actual transcripts about this sting operation, but
the article I read said it played out as follows.
The "infiltrated" fed found out Jimmy Bob didn't really have a target
for his "blow them ****ers to hell" comment, so together they worked
out one that Jimmy Bob agreed would be a good one.
Might have been the Dirksen federal building. What drunk likes feds?
The undercover fed found out Jimmy Bob had no source for explosives.
No problem. The fed gave him a source. Another fed of course.
The fed found out Jimmy Bob had no money.
Aw, hell, he could lend him some money.
So Jimmy Bob gets released from the drunk tank after his 3-day stay,
and the terrorist plot gets in high gear.
Dangerous move letting this madman loose?
No, because the feds were ready. Most of the Chicago FBI office
manpower was on his tail, protecting us.
They were hoping for leads to get deeper into Jimmy Bob's "terrorist
cell," so teams were on him 24 hours a day.
BTW, this is the REAL 24 hours, not the TV bull****.
It irritated the feds following Jimmy Bob, because of the bus exhaust.
Yeah, Jimmy Bob rode the CTA. No Aston-Martins for him.
His first stop was interesting.
A liquor store.
Anyway, you get the picture.
The feds hauled him in after a few days, tired of sucking bus exhaust
I suppose, and just charged him with........Terrorism.
Don't recall if he ever made contact with explosives fed who was fed
to him by the drunk tank fed.
And I don't know what happened to him in the end.
Maybe he's at Gitmo.
Jimmy Bob Baker. Madison Street Wino Terrorist.
We can all be grateful GWB kept us safe from the likes of a terrorist
like him. Probably saved thousands of lives. Maybe millions.

--Vic

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:07:44 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:02:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



That's what they used for the "mastermind" of 9/11 or so they claimed. He
gave lots of information, most of it false. The previous adminstration
touted it as "essential" in "preventing" additional attacks. A load of crap.

You can't prove that. They destroyed the interrogation tapes.
A few months after 9-11 the feds in Chicago prevented a major attack
on America when they nabbed a terrorist. I recall that Bush touted
this arrest in a speech about how he was "keeping us safe" but I won't
try to prove it . You can believe it or not.
I think I read the account in the Trib, but won't swear to it.
Here's a pretty accurate description of the terrorist and how he was
apprehended. You want closer, get the official files and newspaper
accounts.
The terrorist was a 40 some year-old wino with a name like Jimmy Bob
Baker.
Not sure, but probably originally a Smokey Mountain cracker who came
to Chicago when he got his ass kicked too many times in Tennessee.
Used to be a lot of these southern winos here on Madison Street and
Uptown. They actually blended in well with the American Indian drunks
in the same places. Cherokee blood maybe.
Jimmy Bob was in the drunk tank and told another drunk "I'll blow them
****ers to hell."
The other drunk ratted this threat out to the cops, who brought in the
feds from the Chicago FBI office.
They had located a terrorist. Damn Sam!
A fed was put in the cell with Jimmy Bob to "infiltrate" the terrorist
organization. I'd like to talk to that fed. Must be a hell of a guy,
since I even have a hard time getting close to drunk crackers, and I
can play a pretty good low-life. Maybe he brought a bottle.
I haven't seen any actual transcripts about this sting operation, but
the article I read said it played out as follows.
The "infiltrated" fed found out Jimmy Bob didn't really have a target
for his "blow them ****ers to hell" comment, so together they worked
out one that Jimmy Bob agreed would be a good one.
Might have been the Dirksen federal building. What drunk likes feds?
The undercover fed found out Jimmy Bob had no source for explosives.
No problem. The fed gave him a source. Another fed of course.
The fed found out Jimmy Bob had no money.
Aw, hell, he could lend him some money.
So Jimmy Bob gets released from the drunk tank after his 3-day stay,
and the terrorist plot gets in high gear.
Dangerous move letting this madman loose?
No, because the feds were ready. Most of the Chicago FBI office
manpower was on his tail, protecting us.
They were hoping for leads to get deeper into Jimmy Bob's "terrorist
cell," so teams were on him 24 hours a day.
BTW, this is the REAL 24 hours, not the TV bull****.
It irritated the feds following Jimmy Bob, because of the bus exhaust.
Yeah, Jimmy Bob rode the CTA. No Aston-Martins for him.
His first stop was interesting.
A liquor store.
Anyway, you get the picture.
The feds hauled him in after a few days, tired of sucking bus exhaust
I suppose, and just charged him with........Terrorism.
Don't recall if he ever made contact with explosives fed who was fed
to him by the drunk tank fed.
And I don't know what happened to him in the end.
Maybe he's at Gitmo.
Jimmy Bob Baker. Madison Street Wino Terrorist.
We can all be grateful GWB kept us safe from the likes of a terrorist
like him. Probably saved thousands of lives. Maybe millions.

--Vic

Drunk Tank=Sleeper Cell!

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:06:36 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:07:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:36:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce

People being people, Bruce is exactly correct. With some people, the mere
suggestion that they might experience some discomfort will be enough to get
them to spill their guts, tell everything they know, and sell all their
compatriots down the river.

Yes, even thiose who don't know anything will confess! Often in great
detail.


Actually, I doubt that any interrogators are inclined to believe any
unsupported statement made under "torture" whatever the definition.

At least the only statement I have read about the U.S. efforts seems
to say that they get a bit of information from "A" which correlates
with information from "B" which fits with NSA intercepts from "C" and
so on. As I remember the article, which said that after OBama was
fully briefed about the CIA activities he might change his mind,
refereed to correlation of information from as far afield as Thailand,
the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan and Spain.



I'm sure other countries will keep that in mind as they torture our
soldiers.