Should the Pope apologize??

[LuvDuke]

Then you missed Bush outlining that in detail last week in his speech.

Good lord, that's your proof: Bush said so.

Bush's credibility and a $1.50 will get you a ride on the subway.

 

[LuvDuke]

His tortured testimony was not valuable. The President was lying. That's the summary

Bush lies? Whatta world, whatta world. Next you're going to say Cheney lies too. Oh no, say it ain't so.

 

[LuvDuke]

Tell us how we tracked him. Make your attempted point. Perhaps it will be cogent. Unprecedented.

The President may believe it works. He believes a lot of things. But he may like it for other reasons as well

Actually, I think he likes the idea of torture because he's convinced himself he's a person of destiny fighting a war unlike any other and he's got to "break some eggs to make an omelet". That's what real men do.

Plus, he's got some sick twisted *******s around him feeding his ego.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[bsnyder]

Same way a NYC detective gets information out of an uncooperative suspect. They don't need torture, so why the hell does anybody else? Or maybe you don't think the job of keeping the public safe from criminals is really is all that important.

Do you honestly believe the only way to get information is through torture? People like you really believe you're in a unique position in history. That's really what this is all about. It started out with the crap that this was going to be a war unlike any other, and the fact is, it's just like every other. The difference is the major players really do believe they're people of destiny who have to reinvent the wheel.

And, no, you're not an ignoramus, but sometimes you play one.

Do you honestly believe this is just a law enforcement problem? I think we already tried that approach for 8 years during the prior Administration.

 

[JPN4265]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fitswimmer]

It started out with the crap that this was going to be a war unlike any other, and the fact is, it's just like every other.

Can't agree with you there, my friend. In WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, the wars were about territory. North Korea wanted South Korea, the Communists wanted all of Vietnam, Germany wanted all of Europe..you get the idea. The war declared on the West by militant Islam, beginning as far back as the hostage situation in Iran is about culture. The sects that believed Western cultural influence was perverting their culture began to fight to destroy it. I can agree with Condi Rice in that respect, we spent too long with our heads in the sand, the other side has been at war with the West since the 1970's, it took 9-11 to shake us out of our stupor. Has the current administration fought the larger war the best way it could be fought-no, but neither did any administration that came before them. And, as has been repeatedly asked by people like Tim Russert and others-What is the Democratic Plan to deal with terrorism? Why should I vote them into office? How will they do things better?

 

[LuvDuke]

Do you honestly believe this is just a law enforcement problem? I think we already tried that approach for 8 years during the prior Administration.

I never said it is only a law enforcement problem so stop putting words in my mouth.

One of the reasons I do not want you in my playgroup is I am not going to play the neverending game of knocking down the strawman that you continually set up to mask the fact that you don't have an original idea in your head and, therefore, aren't capable of honestly debate. Hence, your continuing use of the strawman.

 

[Charade]

I never said it is only a law enforcement problem so stop putting words in my mouth.

.

Would you agree that the methods in the police manual are probably quite different than what's in the army's manual? I think that's the point she was trying to make. I don't want them using the police manual on hardened terrorists. Unless they're on US soil. But sometimes, once in a while, you need to let "Jack Bauer" take a crack at some of these people.

 

[LuvDuke]

Would you agree that the methods in the police manual are probably quite different than what's in the army's manual?

Since you brought it up, you tell me. Btw, isn't the desired result the same; information?

And what makes you think you know anymore than:

1) John McCain (Viet Nam veteran and former POW)

2) John Warner (WWII veteran, former Secretary of the Navy, and current US senator from Virginia)

3) Lindsey Graham (retired military and former member of JAG)

4) Colin Powell (retired military, former head of the Joint Chiefs, and former Secretary of State)

5) George Schultz (former secretary of state)

6) and countless military officers who have come forth in the last week.

Hmmmm............

And please, the answer "because Bush said so" is not a truly credible option.

I think that's the point she was trying to make.

I'm sure Bet can speak for herself, and, through past experience, I think I understood her point very well,

I don't want them using the police manual on hardened terrorists.

What makes you think a hardened terrorist is any different than a hardened criminal?

Unless they're on US soil.

Maybe that's the point to the Bush administration rendition and secret prison plan. They don't want anybody to see what they're doing.

Btw, the Red Cross is going to pay a visit to the "Guantanamo 14" within the next week or so. That's the reason for Bush's big Geneva Convention initiative. He wants Congress to retroactively cover his *** by redefining the Geneva Convention through US statutes so he can claim "I was only following the law". And sure as God made little green apples, the usual suspects will buy it.

But sometimes, once in a while, you need to let "Jack Bauer" take a crack at some of these people.

You're watching far too much television. When's the season premiere? January?

 

[sodaseller]

Would you agree that the methods in the police manual are probably quite different than what's in the army's manual? I think that's the point she was trying to make. I don't want them using the police manual on hardened terrorists. Unless they're on US soil. But sometimes, once in a while, you need to let "Jack Bauer" take a crack at some of these people.

Would you agree that it might be best to learn from others with similar experience, like the Israelis or the French with Algeria? From what I have read, and I doubt I could easily relocate the cites and definitely don't want to expend the time trying, both used torture but ultimately found the info too unreliable. Some truth was disclosed, but it was almost impossible to discern, and much was lost tracking down misinformation. From what I read and recall, truly reliable information is only gained after a somewhat prolonged period of social isolation, misinformation to the detainee to make him think he has been abandoned and that others are also giving up the cause, and some trust that he will not suffer. Trust is very key. Even if you are the enemy, they must trust what you say if you are to use the full arsenal of psychological ploys.

IOW, the more important tactic is to create a feeling of hopelessness and resignation rather than battle. While they will not "come to your side" or stop seeing you as the enemy, seeing the captors as human and powerful without being sadistic eventually breaks down the strongest. Psychological pain is always more devastating than physical pain or humiliation. It was also best to have another "detainee" working with you, which often happens

The other great value about getting truly reliable info is the psychological effect of those on the outside. First, I have been repeatedly outraged at the fact that the US has repeatedly leaked a capture right after it happens, or at least sooner than an ally wanted to, solely for domestic political consumption. An opposing network is obviously most vulnerable before it realizes it has been potentially compromised, and there are often far removed actors that would not know but for the publicity, and might still the contact the detainee, etc. More significantly, when you chase a false lead and your opponent see it, they draw psychological strength from their "brother's resistance." Conversely, when you are plainly getting good info, and especially if it is unclear if torture is involved, you tend to create intense despair in the enemy, as it looks as if their former comrades are simply disloyal and might reveal all.

I have also read that actual torture is never as valuable as the actual fear of what might occur. Nations that really face threats never engage in the type of tough guy talk our leaders favor because they know that nothing is more devastating psychologically than the unknown. It seems as if we are fighting this battle more to satisfy domestic constituencies and the psychological needs of our leaders than to actually best protect the country. Though I agree that military service should never be a prerequisite to leadership, it seems to inoculate leaders from feeling the need to prove their manhood. At a minimum, a leader should get good advice from someone with such experience so that they discern the difference between cinema and reality

 

[LuvDuke]

Would you agree that it might be best to learn from others with similar experience, like the Israelis or the French with Algeria?

Ah, but here's the rub. Since Bush has such a messianic view of himself as a person of destiny facing totally new and unknown dangers, he can't possibly learn from someone else because no one else is a person of destiny facing totally new and unknown dangers.

Do you see how the circular argument works? It all stems from that. They have to reinvent the wheel because, well, they've got to reinvent the wheel because the wheel the way they need it, has never existed before.

 

[bsnyder]

The straw man being brought up here is that cohersive techniques don't work, or that you can get the same (or better) information by using the kind of interogations we see on Law & Order. That's the approach that some have taken to avoid having to grapple with tough, real world decisions. Just deny that it works, and then you never have to worry about it again.

Now LuvDuke has introduced another straw man, that these people:

1) John McCain (Viet Nam veteran and former POW)

2) John Warner (WWII veteran, former Secretary of the Navy, and current US senator from Virginia)

3) Lindsey Graham (retired military and former member of JAG)

4) Colin Powell (retired military, former head of the Joint Chiefs, and former Secretary of State)

have come out and said we shouldn't use cohersive techniques. That is false. They've said we shouldn't amend the Geneva Convention. So, we're left with all these murky definitions and no one, in this day and age would want to guess how a future judge and jury might interpret or misinterpret a given set of circumstances.

John McCain has said we should have the program. But he wants to dump the legal and moral implications onto the mid-level operational guys who have to extract information from suicidal fanatics. The CIA guys are refusing to be set up as the fall guys.

“We are not saying the CIA cannot carry out a programme,” Mr McCain said yesterday. “We are saying it cannot amend the Geneva conventions, which calls for the kind of treatment of prisoners that fall under Common Article 3.”

Before the vote, Mr Bush vowed to “resist any bill that does not enable this [CIA] programme to go forward with legal clarity”.

 

[sodaseller]

Plus, we all forget the reason that so many in the military oppose torture. First, it erodes their sense of professionalism (though that does not apply to the CIA). Second it makes it more likely that they will experience worst treatment. Not every potential captor is Zarqawi and many will modify their treatment based on what they know their "side" has experience (and that's really key given the fact that most of those tortured were no al Queda but local sympathizers or total innocents that wee unlucky or falsely betrayed to settle a grudge).

Finally, it directly undermines our attempt to "transform" Middle Eastern culture. All the soaring rhetoric

 

[sodaseller]

The definitions are only murky if you need them to be. There is no defensible definitions that perm,its what we have been doing, which is why were are trying to reinterpret Geneva and why we said it didn't apply before last summer's ruling. And if you think Powell is not actually against it, you have no idea how to read such letters. High profile individuals writing for the record before a Congressional Committee do not use rhetoric like message boards. The very fact that he is going on the record against the Administration is significant.

Graham is plainly motivated by the corruption of the JAG corps, a common theme with this administration, which seeks to taint all it touches

 

[bsnyder]

Would you agree that it might be best to learn from others with similar experience, like the Israelis or the French with Algeria? From what I have read, and I doubt I could easily relocate the cites and definitely don't want to expend the time trying, both used torture but ultimately found the info too unreliable.

What I've read, in the case of Israel, is that they did stop using more cohersive techniques, in response to a judicial decision in the late 80's. But that they quietly resumed after the most recent Intifada. I'll have to look up the sources later tonight....

 

[bsnyder]

The definitions are only murky if you need them to be. There is no defensible definitions that perm,its what we have been doing, which is why were are trying to reinterpret Geneva and why we said it didn't apply before last summer's ruling. And if you think Powell is not actually against it, you have no idea how to read such letters. High profile individuals writing for the record before a Congressional Committee do not use rhetoric like message boards. The very fact that he is going on the record against the Administration is significant.

Graham is plainly motivated by the corruption of the JAG corps, a common theme with this administration, which seeks to taint all it touches

You left out McCain....

 

[sodaseller]

What McCain sincerely believes I don't know. But I know he will make symbolic stand while permitting language that permits it to continue. So will Graham for that matter. If I had to guess, I would say he doesn't approve but will not go to war with the WhiteHosue. Just like Arlen Specter

 

[sodaseller]

What I've read, in the case of Israel, is that they did stop using more cohersive techniques, in response to a judicial decision in the late 80's. But that they quietly resumed after the most recent Intifada. I'll have to look up the sources later tonight....

Not what I've read, though possible. But I know they had the South Lebanon prison where they let the Maronites torture Hezbollah. Didn't seem to get much actionable intelligence.

Plus, the Israelis always want to maintain the reputation that bad things can happen

 

[Fitswimmer]

So, we're back to the same question. What reason does the captured terrorist have to give up information on his buddies? I agree that torture is out, they aren't afraid to die, you can't even threaten their families because to die in jihad is the ultimate fast pass to eternal joy.
In order to get information, the criminal either has to have fear that something bad will happen or expectation that something good will happen. I'm not ready to give a terrorist any kind of goodies for information, because I don't trust them.

and that's really key given the fact that most of those tortured were no al Queda but local sympathizers or total innocents that wee unlucky or falsely betrayed to settle a grudge

Can you give me a link for that? I haven't seen any info on that in the Times or CNN. I've seen opinions, but not any hard evidence. I don't trust opinions from left or right.

 

[bsnyder]

Not what I've read, though possible. But I know they had the South Lebanon prison where they let the Maronites torture Hezbollah. Didn't seem to get much actionable intelligence.

Plus, the Israelis always want to maintain the reputation that bad things can happen

Agreed, on the latter.

And on the former, possibly they didn't have the right prisoners. Obvously, it's a given that you can only get intelligence, from whatever means, if the prisoner actually knows anything that's actionable.

Graham is plainly motivated by the corruption of the JAG corps

I'm curious (truly) about what you mean here.

And now I really have to get going. Hope everyone has a nice day.