Top 10 Signs You Live in a Police State

[Zkribbler]

gophers.

[MosesPresley]

In my OP I didn't specify any particular country, but it is interesting and revealing that everyone assumed that the USSA: The United Security States of America was the target. Of course to be honest that was what I was inferring.

You can quibble about the defense spending being the largest or almost the largest, but the point was to show where the priorities of the nation lie.

My whole point was to show that the US is on the wrong path and is flirting dangerously with a police state mentality. We are on the precipice and once we fall over there will be no turning back without a lot of bloodshed most likely.

This following article debunks many of the myths of torture and purports to show what the purpose of torture truly is. It originally appeared in the Washington Post.

5 Myths About Torture and Truth
Myths About Torture and Truth

By Darius Rejali
Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page B03


So the CIA did indeed torture Abu Zubaida, the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to have been waterboarded. So says John Kiriakou, the first former CIA employee directly involved in the questioning of "high-value" al-Qaeda detainees to speak out publicly. He minced no words last week in calling the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" what they are.

But did they work? Torture's defenders, including the wannabe tough guys who write Fox's "24," insist that the rough stuff gets results. "It was like flipping a switch," said Kiriakou about Abu Zubaida's response to being waterboarded. But the al-Qaeda operative's confessions -- descriptions of fantastic plots from a man who intelligence analysts were convinced was mentally ill -- probably didn't give the CIA any actionable intelligence. Of course, we may never know the whole truth, since the CIA destroyed the videotapes of Abu Zubaida's interrogation. But here are some other myths that are bound to come up as the debate over torture rages on.

1 Torture worked for the Gestapo.

Actually, no. Even Hitler's notorious secret police got most of their information from public tips, informers and interagency cooperation. That was still more than enough to let the Gestapo decimate anti-Nazi resistance in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Russia and the concentration camps.

Yes, the Gestapo did torture people for intelligence, especially in later years. But this reflected not torture's efficacy but the loss of many seasoned professionals to World War II, increasingly desperate competition for intelligence among Gestapo units and an influx of less disciplined younger members. (Why do serious, tedious police work when you have a uniform and a whip?) It's surprising how unsuccessful the Gestapo's brutal efforts were. They failed to break senior leaders of the French, Danish, Polish and German resistance. I've spent more than a decade collecting all the cases of Gestapo torture "successes" in multiple languages; the number is small and the results pathetic, especially compared with the devastating effects of public cooperation and informers.

2 Everyone talks sooner or later under torture.

Truth is, it's surprisingly hard to get anything under torture, true or false. For example, between 1500 and 1750, French prosecutors tried to torture confessions out of 785 individuals. Torture was legal back then, and the records document such practices as the bone-crushing use of splints, pumping stomachs with water until they swelled and pouring boiling oil on the feet. But the number of prisoners who said anything was low, from 3 percent in Paris to 14 percent in Toulouse (an exceptional high). Most of the time, the torturers were unable to get any statement whatsoever.

And such examples could be multiplied. The Japanese fascists, no strangers to torture, said it best in their field manual, which was found in Burma during World War II: They described torture as the clumsiest possible method of gathering intelligence. Like most sensible torturers, they preferred to use torture for intimidation, not information.

3 People will say anything under torture.

Well, no, although this is a favorite chestnut of torture's foes. Think about it: Sure, someone would lie under torture, but wouldn't they also lie if they were being interrogated without coercion?

In fact, the problem of torture does not stem from the prisoner who has information; it stems from the prisoner who doesn't. Such a person is also likely to lie, to say anything, often convincingly. The torture of the informed may generate no more lies than normal interrogation, but the torture of the ignorant and innocent overwhelms investigators with misleading information. In these cases, nothing is indeed preferable to anything. Anything needs to be verified, and the CIA's own 1963 interrogation manual explains that "a time-consuming delay results" -- hardly useful when every moment matters.

Intelligence gathering is especially vulnerable to this problem. When police officers torture, they know what the crime is, and all they want is the confession. When intelligence officers torture, they must gather information about what they don't know.

4 Most people can tell when someone is lying under torture.

Not so -- and we know quite a bit about this. For about 40 years, psychologists have been testing police officers as well as normal people to see whether they can spot lies, and the results aren't encouraging. Ordinary folk have an accuracy rate of about 57 percent, which is pretty poor considering that 50 percent is the flip of a coin. Likewise, the cops' accuracy rates fall between 45 percent and 65 percent -- that is, sometimes less accurate than a coin toss.

Why does this matter? Because even if torturers break a person, they have to recognize it, and most of the time they can't. Torturers assume too much and reject what doesn't fit their assumptions. For instance, Sheila Cassidy, a British physician, cracked under electric-shock torture by the Chilean secret service in the 1970s and identified priests who had helped the country's socialist opposition. But her devout interrogators couldn't believe that priests would ever help the socialists, so they tortured her for another week until they finally became convinced. By that time, she was so damaged that she couldn't remember the location of the safe house.

In fact, most torturers are nowhere near as well trained for interrogation as police are. Torturers are usually chosen because they've endured hardship and pain, fought with courage, kept secrets, held the right beliefs and earned a reputation as trustworthy and loyal. They often rely on folklore about what lying behavior looks like -- shifty eyes, sweaty palms and so on. And, not surprisingly, they make a lot of mistakes.

5 You can train people to resist torture.

Supposedly, this is why we can't know what the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" are: If Washington admits that it waterboards suspected terrorists, al-Qaeda will set up "waterboarding-resistance camps" across the world. Be that as it may, the truth is that no training will help the bad guys.

Simply put, nothing predicts the outcome of one's resistance to pain better than one's own personality. Against some personalities, nothing works; against others, practically anything does. Studies of hundreds of detainees who broke under Soviet and Chinese torture, including Army-funded studies of U.S. prisoners of war, conclude that during, before and after torture, each prisoner displayed strengths and weaknesses dependent on his or her own character. The CIA's own "Human Resources Exploitation Manual" from 1983 and its so-called Kubark manual from 1963 agree. In all matters relating to pain, says Kubark, the "individual remains the determinant."

The thing that's most clear from torture-victim studies is that you can't train for the ordeal. There is no secret knowledge out there about how to resist torture. Yes, there are manuals, such as the IRA's "Green Book," the anti-Soviet "Manual for Psychiatry for Dissidents" and "Torture and the Interrogation Experience," an Iranian guerrilla manual from the 1970s. But none of these volumes contains specific techniques of resistance, just general encouragement to hang tough. Even al-Qaeda's vaunted terrorist-training manual offers no tips on how to resist torture, and al-Qaeda was no stranger to the brutal methods of the Saudi police.

And yet these myths persist. "The larger problem here, I think," one active CIA officer observed in 2005, "is that this kind of stuff just makes people feel better, even if it doesn't work."

drpolsci@gmail.com


Darius Rejali is a professor of political science at Reed College and the author of the recently published "Torture and Democracy."

[Wiglaf]

A) Only ~3 people have been waterboarded.

B) No one is disputing that torture should be a last resort, but if you have someone who knows something but won't talk, and the stakes are high enough, you are a ****ing idiot if you let him have an attorney and sit in a nice cell while the plan unfolds.

In my OP I didn't specify any particular country, but it is interesting and revealing that everyone assumed that the USSA: The United Security States of America was the target. Of course to be honest that was what I was inferring.

Goes to show how tired this little joke is. Instead of quoting 5,000 word hit pieces from liberal newspapers, try arguing sensibly.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
A) Only ~3 people have been waterboarded.

That you know of. The whole project is hush hush. The outsourcing, extraordinary rendition, of torture has had many people come forth confirming the secret prisons. Congress already knows of one tape that was destroyed. How many others are there?

If you read my article, the whole point of torture isn't information, it's to make the populace feel safe and to intimidate the enemy.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Goes to show how tired this little joke is. Instead of quoting 5,000 word hit pieces from liberal newspapers, try arguing sensibly.

I wasn't arguing anything. I was making a point. One which seems lost on you.

I also injected a little humor into my point so that this discussion wouldn't turn into the usual crapfest that this board so loves.

Name calling if I recall correctly isn't arguing sensibly, but if it makes you feel better to ape your ideological masters by calling it a "hit piece" feel free.

[DinoDoc]

In my OP I didn't specify any particular country, but it is interesting and revealing that everyone assumed that the USSA

Given the general tenor of this forum the only choices were either Israel or America. It wasn't a hard leap to make.

[Zkribbler]

1. Your nation has the highest per capita of its population in prison.

There can only be one "highest," and right now, we're it. No. 1 gave away what country you're talking about.

[MosesPresley]

Of course. I concede the point.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


That you know of. The whole project is hush hush. The outsourcing, extraordinary rendition, of torture has had many people come forth confirming the secret prisons. Congress already knows of one tape that was destroyed. How many others are there?

If you read my article, the whole point of torture isn't information, it's to make the populace feel safe and to intimidate the enemy.

Then your article is wrong. Torture has been a contentious and damaging political issue for the government, and I somehow doubt that it discourages any of the suicidal fanatics who attack US troops and civilians every day in Iraq. Earlier you (Or Zkribbler) argued it actually motivates them..

It's about critical information, and I guess it will take another 9/11 until you realize we need all the information gathering tools legally available at our disposal.

[MosesPresley]

You have to admit that it is interesting how many of the points I made have the ring of truth to them. Enough so that people want to get up and defend the indefensible.

Torture is indefensible. Its sole purpose is intimidation. Spending more on imprisonment than education is indefensible.

Spending more on national defense when there are no armies threatening the US is indefensible. We can argue about this one.

Suspension of habeas corpus because of secret security reasons is indefensible.

Secret searches are indefensible. Who's conducting them and who are they searching. Of course it's only the enemy, but that's certainly not true.

All telecommunications, not just those going to foreign countries are being monitored. I'm trying to find the link. All the communications in the country go into this one sealed room. It was on that liberal Olberman's show one night. Feel free to name call on this one if you disagree, especially if it makes you feel better.

Pervasive public surveillance is not a good thing, especially in a free society.

Free speech zones are not what the founding fathers had in mind. I'm pretty sure about that. Wiggy if you see that little clip I posted, you will see that the officers were shooting the protesters with rubber bullets for fun. I'm sure Russia and China to name but two would think that we were a little soft on them as they would probably just outright shoot them on occasion, but we are more civilized and we prefer to tasers, rubber bullets and old fashioned billy clubbing them. The video I showed was not an isolated incident. This is how protesters in this country are handled now.

Thank god for the 48" pizza, otherwise I would think that we are all doomed to live under the totalitarian fascist boot of the oligarchical powers of DOOM

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


It's about critical information, and I guess it will take another 9/11 until you realize we need all the information gathering tools legally available at our disposal.

If that makes you sleep better at night, you cozy right up to nuzzle your torture instruments. It makes me queasy to think so many people would like to torture someone, and that someone could be me.

cue obscure reference:

Now . . . how many you folks is CONVINCED de gubnint be totally 'UNCONCERNED' wit de proliferatium o' UNDESIRABLE TENANTS in de CONDOMINIUM o' LIFE? An' how many folks believe THEY number won't come up, next time de breeze blow fum de Easterly directium?

[Wiglaf]

Suspension of habeas corpus because of secret security reasons is indefensible.

Tell this to Lincoln, who used suspension of these rights to preserve the ****ing country.

Stop thinking in absolutes and you might be more useful.

[MosesPresley]

That was a civil war. A little different situation, you think?

[DinoDoc]

No.

[Wiglaf]

It was a more serious situation, that's why he was a lot more brazen about it and suspended habeas corpus for American citizens, not just non-citizen terrorists from Afghanistan.

Scalia did argue that habeas corpus can only be suspended in instances, as constitution says, of insurrection or invasion. However most justices decided in Hamdi that some habeas corpus rights can be suspended in case of illegal combatants.