Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Dinner]

I'm most inpressed with the Israeli court's ruling. Israel can't be called a peacenik or pacifist the way some people might try to frame the European court. That the Israelis took a good long look at such tactics and found them to be out of bounds means something.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, is this torture? I'm curious to know what you guys think our interrogators should be allowed to do (if anything) in an attempt to get information out of detainees...

[Dinner]

Hmmm, clearly it isn't tourcher but I'm not sure about the degrading part. Since, it was fake blood I'd say it was ok. Just my $0.02.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, is this torture?

No, it's degrading treatment, however (and quite obviously).

As far as our interrogators. They should do what they can as long as it is not torture or inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment. You know, actually interrogate the prisoners rather than try to humiliate or hurt them or try to break them like they would a stallion?

[Patroklos]

We really should not be allowed to station any females at that base period. Seeing women under arms might offend their delicate sence of manhood, and maybe degrade their culture.

As does holding them prisoner. I mean what real jihadist gets captured anyways?

[Drake Tungsten]

No, it's degrading treatment, however (and quite obviously).

So you think it should be illegal?

[Patroklos]

As far as our interrogators. They should do what they can as long as it is not torture or inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment. You know, actually interrogate the prisoners rather than try to humiliate or hurt them or try to break them like they would a stallion?

>BEGIN<

*Hands prisoner donut

Interrigator: "You want to talk?"

Prisoner: "No."

*Takes away donut

Interrigator: "How about now."

Prisoner: "No."

>END<

Though I suppose that is torture under the law, he might have really wanted a donut.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

No, it's degrading treatment, however (and quite obviously).

So you think it should be illegal?

Of course. It's solely designed to humiliate and degrade the prisoners. What information do you think you are going to get out of such a technique?

From your article:

Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticized by the FBI, which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that U.S. defense officials hadn’t acted on complaints by FBI observers of “highly aggressive” interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee’s genitals.

When the FBI complains... you know its going a bit too far.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course. It's solely designed to humiliate and degrade the prisoners. What information do you think you are going to get out of such a technique?

You really don't think that breaking down a detainee's mental defenses might prove useful in later interrogations?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you really breaking down their mental defenses or just making them pissed off at you, hardening those defenses? The detainee in the story cried, but he did he give them anything afterwards, or did he feel humiliated and pledge not to give them anything?

Hell, torture is said to break down a detainee's mental defenses, but the answers you get are usually those you want to hear, rather than the actual truth.

[Sava]

Right... you tell them what will make them stop hurting you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
>BEGIN<

*Hands prisoner donut

Interrigator: "You want to talk?"

Prisoner: "No."

*Takes away donut

Interrigator: "How about now."

Prisoner: "No."

>END<

Though I suppose that is torture under the law, he might have really wanted a donut.

funny, police have been very effective at getting confessions without using torture or other questionable tactics. How do you explain that?

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you really breaking down their mental defenses or just making them pissed off at you, hardening those defenses?

I think the interrogators that do this for a living probably have a better idea about the effects of their actions than you do. I say let them do things the way they think will be most effective, as long as they don't engage in torture or inhumane treatment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Are you really breaking down their mental defenses or just making them pissed off at you, hardening those defenses?

I think the interrogators that do this for a living probably have a better idea about the effects of their actions than you do. I say let them do things the way they think will be most effective, as long as they don't engage in torture or inhumane treatment.

Like stress positions or sleep deprivations? We know that people will just tell you want you want to hear to stop torture or inhuman treatment against them, yet, those things happen all the time, all over the world. I'm sure the Syrians realize that torture will just get you what you want to hear instead of the truth, but they do it anyway.

So no, I don't think that the people who do it for a living have a better idea of the effects. In fact, they seem to ignore the effects so that they can continue their actions.

[Drake Tungsten]

So no, I don't think that the people who do it for a living have a better idea of the effects.

I figured as much, which is why I don't really take your opinions on this subject seriously.