Western governments are quiet about CIA torture techniques
-
Torture for fun? I don't agree with this. Throwing the babies into the air and stabbing them is not torturing them physically, buy psycologically. The babies are their children. How could one as a parent have no feelings when their children are killed right in front of their eyes?Originally posted by SilverPal:The Japs were torturing ppl for fun. Throwing babies into the air and stabbing them with a bayonet is not torture.
Raping women randomly is not exactly for retrieval of information.
The water treatment initially was for information, yes. And they were amazingly effective when employed against chinese civillians! Those tortured told them a lot right?
What other ways are there to find out information when all you have is an intelligence vacuum and you have about 48 hours before a bomb goes off???
Pleading with the suspected parties? Payment that can be used to buy more bombs and rifles?
Inteligence is not as simple as depicted on James Bond, Alias, "Coleteral Damage" or any other shows in hollywood.
To prevent more of their children from dying, they give up resisting and give the information that the Japanese wants.
Pleading may work. They may not tell you answers directly and send you on a wild goose chase. But if you are observant enough, you may be able to get some hints. -
Torture works whether you like it or not.
CIA should continue with their good work on the terrorists.
I recommend they extend the use of torture and surveilance in this war on terror. -
You are right on this.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Aren't we being rather naive to think that governments will use torture 'in good faith' when it is necessary to protect the wider population? What is to stop them from calling everyone they don't like a terrorist? It should be easier to do that than to label a political opponent a homosexual, and even that has been done.
... and if after that another terrorist implicates you AGAIN, can you be tortured AGAIN? That is another grey area.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:And what if you are wrong about the terrorist suspect? What if you have tortured an innocent man by mistake? If I were the victim, I want to torture my tormenters back in return. It's only fair. Perhaps the law should alllow that too?
(just joking)
Can you clarify this part: in your opinion, can governments (etc) torture for information AFTER the accused is convicted (as a terrorist or the such)?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:No, I still favour the legal process. Once you have convicted them as terrorists, I don;t care whether you hang them or castrate them, as far as the law allows it. But no torture before trial.
i.e. torture AFTER trial... -
Oxford is obviously a pro terrorists liberal.
I hope his family gets tortured & murdered by terrorists. -
You are correct in saying that killing babies in the said method would compel the parents to provide information.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Torture for fun? I don't agree with this. Throwing the babies into the air and stabbing them is not torturing them physically, buy psycologically. The babies are their children. How could one as a parent have no feelings when their children are killed right in front of their eyes?
To prevent more of their children from dying, they give up resisting and give the information that the Japanese wants.
Pleading may work. They may not tell you answers directly and send you on a wild goose chase. But if you are observant enough, you may be able to get some hints.
But as mushroom has brought up, the japs during the occupation abused their power by killing the babies whether the parents had information or not. I'm not too sure if they even bothered "claiming" if the said parents had information as an excuse.
Pleading with political terrorist may work. In return for information, the interogators can offer money or political incentives.
Pleading with religious terrorists (of whatever religion) most probably would not work, especially if the terrorist would not settle for anything less than a new world order with his religion as the political structure. Also most religious terrorists believe that they have nothing to lose as they are doing everything for their god and dying in captivity is desired as it makes them a matyr and their reward will be great in heaven. There is nothing the interogator can give that is better than that.
The fear of pain, permanent disability or going to hell (after the interogators have "defiled" them) would be tremendous incentives for them to give the interogators what they want. All that is achievable thru torture.
Of course there is the problem or knowing if the detainee is lying or if the detainee is innocent remains a big problem as brought up by other forummers. -
Digress from the topic at hand for some comic relief...
Read something on the blog of Scott Adams (the guy that drew Dilbert)
...
ThereÂ’s a lot of talk about whether The United States should torture terrorists. Those opposed to torture say it doesnÂ’t work. That includes people who should know, like John McCain.
Now, if torture doesnÂ’t work, and it makes the rest of the world hate the United States, that seems like a no-brainer. But I canÂ’t help thinking there are three bits of information I need to know before making up my mind.
First, why is torture so widely used if it doesnÂ’t work? I mean, seriously, a lot of professional torturers are putting a lot of effort into it. Has the CIA really never looked into it? Is it like astrology, where people believe it without the benefit of any science?
Second, is torture ineffective for EVERY type of question, or just the kind where you can’t tell if the guy is lying? I can see how it wouldn’t work for questions like, “What is Osama thinking now?” It’s too easy to lie. But is it also ineffective when you say, “I’m going to keep torturing you until we find the guy that you say has the nuclear suitcase bomb. We’ll stop as soon as we find him. No rush.”
Third, apparently we are successfully getting information from captured terror suspects. Are they giving us this stuff because we played annoying music near them and made them stand up for a long time? Has doing a “little extra” ever speeded things up?
...
...
If you think that torture doesn't work, why does interrogation work? No one doubts that plain old interrogation (torture lite) often works. Does it make sense to you that additional discomfort would make interrogation work slower or less often?
If you think there's no moral justification for torture, would you accept the nuclear destruction of NYC (for example) to avoid torturing one known terrorist? (No fair extending my question to more ambiguous hypotheticals.) -
Here's John McCain's position.
He says that torture is no good for information but he also says it is allowed in emergency situation where is terrorist knows of a bomb that will detonate soon.
You see his contradiction there? He does recognise that torture does work doesn't he?
You will see lots of hypocrisy in politics. -
What I mean is. If the law provides for judicial amputations for thefts (as in Islamic Sharia law) or say, emasculation for rapists, I have no issue with the sentence. I believe in being tough on crime too but unlike Salman, I believe in proper legal process.Originally posted by SilverPal:Can you clarify this part: in your opinion, can governments (etc) torture for information AFTER the accused is convicted (as a terrorist or the such)?
i.e. torture AFTER trial... -
So the Nazis were right to torture Allied soldiers for intelligence? Incidentally, they were convicted of war crimes....Originally posted by SilverPal:Torture is to break the spirit of the detainee. Once the detainee has lost his will to resist, he will be more likely to spill the beans. Simply asking him in a criminal court or shaming him in public will not work.
Bottomline, its all about the information. -
So if torture for information of convicted terrorists is part of the legal process (after conviction), you wouldn't protest against the legal process?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What I mean is. If the law provides for judicial amputations for thefts (as in Islamic Sharia law) or say, emasculation for rapists, I have no issue with the sentence. I believe in being tough on crime too but unlike Salman, I believe in proper legal process.
Ironically, I am against such punitive measures such as amputations, stoning and emasculation for the said criminals. Heavy sentences to deter would be criminals and re-education to guide and ensure criminals do not repeat their crimes again would be more in place.
If sketchy intelligence says few thousand innocent people are going to die in an attack on certain targets in 24hrs time, and we already have a terrorist convicted of being part of that terror network and part took in placing the said bombs that would explode in 24hrs time, question is; can we torture him for information? -
History is the ultimate judge.Originally posted by SilverPal:So if torture for information of convicted terrorists is part of the legal process (after conviction), you wouldn't protest against the legal process?
Ironically, I am against such punitive measures such as amputations, stoning and emasculation for the said criminals. Heavy sentences to deter would be criminals and re-education to guide and ensure criminals do not repeat their crimes again would be more in place.
If sketchy intelligence says few thousand innocent people are going to die in an attack on certain targets in 24hrs time, and we already have a terrorist convicted of being part of that terror network and part took in placing the said bombs that would explode in 24hrs time, question is; can we torture him for information?
I would rather a few thousand live than the rights of a suspect/or convicted criminal be upheld to the very extreme of niceties. -
Oxford is just being childish. He's not interested in the rights of anyone. He just wants to be anti Bush.
-
Salman,Originally posted by Salman:Don't ever have the childish idea that if you stop killing and torturing terrorists, you can appease them and they will come to like you and stop their terrorism.
Singapore didn't do a thing to them and yet they planned to bomb Yishun MRT even before 911. This means war on us and we should not be shy about killing or torturing them.
Look, if the Americans are shy about torturing terrorists, they can outsource it to the Egyptians and Jordanians who will do a faster job anytime.
Anyway, there are many ways to break a person psychologically w/o maiming them. Just turn on the aircon, splash cold water and rotate interrogators. Work the knuckles and punch or slap them once in a while. Anyone will crack, its only a matter of time. Don't worry, they won't die.
1) Singaporeans never did anything to the terrorists. But however, our government has been a constant ally to Israel and its protector the United States. So technically (pls don't take these words out of context) the terrorists have a reason, no matter how incredible-sounding, for attacking us. And btw, Yishun MRT is supposedly the station used by a large proportion of Americans. Hence, the terrorists aim to destroy the Americans, not their "fellow" Asian Singaporeans.
2) Whether they torture terrorists themselves or outsource it to places like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Israel, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Thailand or (surprise, surprise!) Singapore, they are still violating their own constitution and international law. Such things are not mere business transactions.
3) There are some things worse than death. You obviously haven't read reports or watched documentaries on torture victims. Go and google for some of these. Anyway, so what if they crack? Will they provide the accurate information just because they crack??
the pikamaster -
SilverPal,Originally posted by SilverPal:An alternative illustration in a world without torture:
CIA: Are you a terrorist?
TERRORIST: I am a tool of God! I only answer to Him!
CIA: I see. Where did you get the bomb from?
TERRORIST: Go to hell.
CIA: I'll consider that... But please tell me where is the bomb? I need to save a few hundred innocent lives...
TERRORIST: You're harrassing me. That's a form of torture!
CIA: I'm sorry. I'll stop that. But you still have to tell me where is the bomb, please?
TERRORIST: You're not respecting my religion. You're insensitive to minorities and your seditious remarks are offensive. My lawyer says that I need not tell you anything at all.
CIA: Please don't sue me...
TERRORIST: Now you're trying to use reverse psychology on me... That too is a form of torture...
CIA: ok ok fine. Want a drink? Coffee anyone?
TERRORIST: Water treatment! I knew it! You're threatening to torture me with water treatment!!!
CIA: ...
[Result? bomb goes off in Chinatown, kills hundreds on innocent people. Terrorist never admitted to planting the bomb, gets off scot free. Interogator gets sued by terrorist for slander, defamation, harassment and torture.]
your "alternate reality of a world without torture" displays quite a number of flaws:-
1) No commonsense investigator will ask such a lame question, firstly because everybody knows that the word "terrorist" has many different interpretations under many different contexts.
5) the CIA sucking up? ur making me laugh.
6&7) There is something called the crime of perjury which the CIA can charge the terrorist for.
8,9,10,11) Once again, the prosecution of perjury can be applied. And generally, lawyers are only called up after interrogation takes place, so the terrorist is breaching civil order by demanding for access to his / her lawyer.
aft) Generally, ur CIA is depicted as far too genteel and foolish for any law-enforcement or intelligence agency, even one which does not practice torture. There is, for example, no reason why the CIA official should start a coffee party.
In the end, the argument you presented doesn't hold.
the (rational) pikamaster -
Salman,Originally posted by Salman:Torture works whether you like it or not.
CIA should continue with their good work on the terrorists.
I recommend they extend the use of torture and surveilance in this war on terror.
these are bland assertions with no supporting evidence.
2) If CIA has performed such "good work" in the past, why couldn't it foil major events like the 9/11 and obtain proper intelligence before urging the adminstration to launch an offensive in iraq to remove non-existent WMDs?
3) You have no idea what you are saying. You would like government agencies to snoop your personal phone calls, read through your love letters before you receive them, rummage your closets to find the information they want? That is surveillance for you man.
the (sad) pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
Oh how convenient. Almost all countries in the world have ties to USA or Israel.
1) Singaporeans never did anything to the terrorists. But however, our government has been a constant ally to Israel and its protector the United States. So technically (pls don't take these words out of context) the terrorists have a reason, no matter how incredible-sounding, for attacking us. And btw, Yishun MRT is supposedly the station used by a large proportion of Americans. Hence, the terrorists aim to destroy the Americans, not their "fellow" Asian Singaporeans.
What right do these terrorists have to restrict our soverign right as an independent nation to choose who we make friends with?
Anyway, the reason you gave is wrong. JI wanted to form a caliphate that includes Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Southrern Thailand and Mindanao and they want to do it through terror on innocent people.
The nations of the world should use any weapon or means to fight terrorists and to destroy them.
2) Whether they torture terrorists themselves or outsource it to places like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Israel, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Thailand or (surprise, surprise!) Singapore, they are still violating their own constitution and international law. Such things are not mere business transactions.
BTW international does not say it is illegal to torture terrorists.
If they do crack, they will give useful information. I'm all for torture of terrorists. I think its a good thing to do.
3) There are some things worse than death. You obviously haven't read reports or watched documentaries on torture victims. Go and google for some of these. Anyway, so what if they crack? Will they provide the accurate information just because they crack??
the pikamaster -
ironically, you have failed to realize that torture - certain forms of it at least - are more punitive than the "punitive measures" you refer to.Originally posted by SilverPal:So if torture for information of convicted terrorists is part of the legal process (after conviction), you wouldn't protest against the legal process?
Ironically, I am against such punitive measures such as amputations, stoning and emasculation for the said criminals. Heavy sentences to deter would be criminals and re-education to guide and ensure criminals do not repeat their crimes again would be more in place.
If sketchy intelligence says few thousand innocent people are going to die in an attack on certain targets in 24hrs time, and we already have a terrorist convicted of being part of that terror network and part took in placing the said bombs that would explode in 24hrs time, question is; can we torture him for information?
Technically, if you have that certainty, you may torture a terrroist, withholding moral standards. But how often could you catch the terrorist who actually PLACED the bomb? perhaps you might catch the courier; then torturing him/ her would be fruitless. -
Salman,
1) be careful about your generalizations; the truth is, not many countries actually have alliances with either USA or Israel. Remember, we are specifically talking about alliances, the kind that allows a foreign country to keep military bases on your "sovereign" land. As far as I can tell, only Japan and us have such a relationship with the USA. As for Israel, the entire middle east is against it, not to mention a large proportion of Europe. Economic ties and diplomatic ties are 2 different things.
Anyway, people don't randomly decide to create caliphates; there must be a trigger.
2) Ever read the Geneva Convention or the Second Optional Protocol on Torture attached to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? These are international laws, although countries which practice torture usually don't ratify these or ratify these with long lists of ambiguous reservations.
3) Hmmm ... correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think a mental patient's testimony is accepted at a standard court of law. If the terrorists crack, they will be in the same state as a mental patient. Go and read up on post-torture trauma.
the pikamaster
P.S.: Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually interrogations tend to be composed of yes/ no questions so that the use of a lie-detector will yield maximum effect. -
It eludes me why would a terrorist be compelled to provide information when all you're going to do is to charge him with more crimes. Being in custody, the terrorist is already labelled as a criminal, he is already going to do the time (prison, caning, fine, etc). I dun see how adding to his jail term can be seen as more frightening to him.Originally posted by pikamaster:SilverPal,
your "alternate reality of a world without torture" displays quite a number of flaws:-
1) No commonsense investigator will ask such a lame question, firstly because everybody knows that the word "terrorist" has many different interpretations under many different contexts.
5) the CIA sucking up? ur making me laugh.
6&7) There is something called the crime of perjury which the CIA can charge the terrorist for.
8,9,10,11) Once again, the prosecution of perjury can be applied. And generally, lawyers are only called up after interrogation takes place, so the terrorist is breaching civil order by demanding for access to his / her lawyer.
aft) Generally, ur CIA is depicted as far too genteel and foolish for any law-enforcement or intelligence agency, even one which does not practice torture. There is, for example, no reason why the CIA official should start a coffee party.
In the end, the argument you presented doesn't hold.
the (rational) pikamaster
Never forget that today's terrorist (forget the lame terrorist of the cold war) believe in a higher cause, a law higher than laws of USA, laws of Isreal, laws higher that any international tribunal. Our laws to them only makes them matyrs. Our jail time, caning and fines only gives them chance to do penance and "cleanse" themselves so as to be able to enter heavens faster.
Can you tell me 1 thing that religious terrorists are afraid of?
And thank you, my post was meant to be vaguely amusing. -
2) Do you have enough statistics to compare against the number of attacks CIA managed to foil using torture?Originally posted by pikamaster:Salman,
these are bland assertions with no supporting evidence.
2) If CIA has performed such "good work" in the past, why couldn't it foil major events like the 9/11 and obtain proper intelligence before urging the adminstration to launch an offensive in iraq to remove non-existent WMDs?
3) You have no idea what you are saying. You would like government agencies to snoop your personal phone calls, read through your love letters before you receive them, rummage your closets to find the information they want? That is surveillance for you man.
the (sad) pikamaster
3) You mean that the country we are living in is so free that all that snooping, cameras in every house, freedom of speech, etc is beyond our imagination? -
Torture is very punitive, granted. But torture as a form of punishment for littering, stealing, raping or even murder is wrong. We do not want these offenders to be psychologically maimed for the sake of revenge. We want them to learn that what they are doing is bad and if they keep repeating their crimes everytime they are released from jail, keep them in jail for life (or sentence them to death, whatever is the current legal standard).Originally posted by pikamaster:ironically, you have failed to realize that torture - certain forms of it at least - are more punitive than the "punitive measures" you refer to.
Technically, if you have that certainty, you may torture a terrroist, withholding moral standards. But how often could you catch the terrorist who actually PLACED the bomb? perhaps you might catch the courier; then torturing him/ her would be fruitless.
If I need information in a hurry, ie there MAYbe a bomb at yishun, I cannot shut down one station indefinitely, I can interogate terrorists i caough for 48 hours, but bearing in mind that terrorists care nothing about jail term and death penalty, what reason will compel him to divulge the information I want?
Capturing the courier of the bomb can give me time and place of bomb was transferred to and from the detainee, this can allow my police to do a run down on the alibi of all known felons and suspected terrorists during that time. He may be able to give a clue as to the identity of their contact man, their colleagues or others who are sympathetic to their cause, thereby preventing more bloodshed.
He is also able to give a clue into their working style (if it is different from other cells).
There is a wealth of information the terrorists contain, question is, will they tell you?
Don't forget the important facts of today's terrorists:
Killing hundreds of infidels is God's work. If you do God's work, you go straight to heaven.
If you get killed doing that work, you are a matyr. Go straight to heaven, get blowjobs from 77 virgins, and 77 servants (or whatever)
The laws of man mean nothing to you.
If you help the great SATAN (ie USA or her allies) defuse the bomb or arrest other tools of God, you betrayed God and you go straight to hell, irrigardless of how many infidels you kill.
now tell me, why would a terrorist who is already going to jail help you stop the bombings? He is afraid of an increase of jail term perhaps? -
repeat post
-
Before we continue, can we safely say that all those who oppose to torture agree that a helpful and effective alternative would be to convict the detainee of more charges? ie more jail term, more strokes of the cane, life or death penalty?
-
Originally posted by pikamaster:
Lots of countries have alliances. Singapore has alliances with ASEAN members, USA, India, Israel, UK, Australia, France, NZ, Taiwan, China, Sweden etc.
Salman,
1) be careful about your generalizations; the truth is, not many countries actually have alliances with either USA or Israel. Remember, we are specifically talking about alliances, the kind that allows a foreign country to keep military bases on your "sovereign" land. As far as I can tell, only Japan and us have such a relationship with the USA. As for Israel, the entire middle east is against it, not to mention a large proportion of Europe. Economic ties and diplomatic ties are 2 different things.
Who is Al Qaeda to interfere in our sovereign right as an independent nation to make friends or trade with others. Who the F gave them the bloody right! We must destroy them!
These fanatics believe the whole world belongs to Allah and it is their duty to dominate the world.
Anyway, people don't randomly decide to create caliphates; there must be a trigger.
One way or another, they have already decided what kinda stupid caliphate they want and they are against us. They choose to fight us so we must fight and kill them all. Everyone of them.
I studied the Geneva Convention, torture of terrorists is not against the convention.
2) Ever read the Geneva Convention or the Second Optional Protocol on Torture attached to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? These are international laws, although countries which practice torture usually don't ratify these or ratify these with long lists of ambiguous reservations.
I suggest you read it yourself and stop talking about things you do not know.
Not true, when they crack, they will give useful information that will save thousands of innocent lives.
3) Hmmm ... correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think a mental patient's testimony is accepted at a standard court of law. If the terrorists crack, they will be in the same state as a mental patient. Go and read up on post-torture trauma..
I think a mental patient will be against torture of terrorists for information that will save lives. Not only a mental patient but an immoral person. I think you need to wake up and send your head for a check up my friend.
Combine that with torture and it will yield fantastic results in the war on terror. Whatever it takes to save innocent lives man, whatever it takes.
the pikamaster
P.S.: Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually interrogations tend to be composed of yes/ no questions so that the use of a lie-detector will yield maximum effect. -
It managed to save a lot of german lives and resources...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So the Nazis were right to torture Allied soldiers for intelligence? Incidentally, they were convicted of war crimes....
So if there is a bomb that is going to explode in 24hrs time killing hundreds of innocent voters, what do we do?
1. Make the captured terrorist (or freedom fighter, whatever) stand trial next week
2. Evacuate ALL possible places (since we do not know exactly where) and cause our economy to come to a stand still, at the same time punishing our innocent citizens with martial laws.
3. Torture suspected terrorist and be labelled immoral.
4. Just let the bomb explode. There's nothing we can do.
5. Pay the terrorists to remove the bomb, since only they know where it is.
6. Beg the terrorists to not explode the bomb.
7. Give in to the terrorist demands and declare war on USA and her allies and restructure our state to become a religious state (of the terrorist's religion).
Choose one.