Western governments are quiet about CIA torture techniques
-
For Oxford and his liberal wacko friends, their option is to sit down comfortably with the terrorist on a therapy chair and simply talk to them and understand them.
According to his naitivity, if we understand them enough, we may understand why they commit terrorism and sympathise with their actions.
That will lead to us like them and hopefully they will like us as well in return.
Once we like them and they like us, they may stop being mean and barbaric towards innocent people and give up their evil teachings and be enlightened or turn naive just like mat salleh Oxford.
Basically their appeasement strategy is like this :
1. Terrorists want to bomb innocent, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
2. Terrorists saw heads of innocent, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
3. Terrorists want to overthrow our govt and form a caliphate, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
4. Terrorists screw his mother, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
They have no other strategy than therapy and understand and be nice to them.
And if all this understanding and nice to them don't work, they have no other weapons or options.
Do you think such strategy will encourage or stop terrorists? -
As usual, you are jumping the gun and making ridiculous conclusions just because you hate liberalism. Please read people's posts carefully before you make any comments. None of us - and definitely not me - is asking for terrorists to be given therapy, or to be "nice and understanding" toward them. (And anyway, once again you are jumping the gun; can you assure that the police are 100% right in every "crook" they nab?) We are saying that we must not let the terrorists drive us to forsake our own values and descend to their level, except perhaps for role-playing educational purposes. Interrogation can be fierce without including torture, physical or mental. The problem with you, Silverpal and your zealot authoritarian wackos is that you pple can't think of anything between the extreme of beating someone to death and giving him candy canes in prison.Originally posted by Salman:For Oxford and his liberal wacko friends, their option is to sit down comfortably with the terrorist on a therapy chair and simply talk to them and understand them.
According to his naitivity, if we understand them enough, we may understand why they commit terrorism and sympathise with their actions.
That will lead to us like them and hopefully they will like us as well in return.
Once we like them and they like us, they may stop being mean and barbaric towards innocent people and give up their evil teachings and be enlightened or turn naive just like mat salleh Oxford.
Basically their appeasement strategy is like this :
1. Terrorists want to bomb innocent, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
2. Terrorists saw heads of innocent, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
3. Terrorists want to overthrow our govt and form a caliphate, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
4. Terrorists screw his mother, therapy, understand and be nice to them.
They have no other strategy than therapy and understand and be nice to them.
And if all this understanding and nice to them don't work, they have no other weapons or options.
Do you think such strategy will encourage or stop terrorists?
Please think more carefully next time.
the (sad) pikamaster -
SilverPal,Originally posted by SilverPal: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.
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.
1) I wasn't indicating that we should charge the terrorist with more crimes, just that the interrogator has the moral superiority to obtain his information without resorting to torture.
2) I understand that. But let me ask you, if they would even scoff at the death penalty, why would they be afraid of torture? Couldn't they take it as a "trial" from Allah?
3) haha
going to Hell? And of course losing the support of their followers.
the pikamaster -
SilverPal,Originally posted by SilverPal:2) Do you have enough statistics to compare against the number of attacks CIA managed to foil using torture?
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?
1) nope, I don't have the statistics, and probably because CIA wouldn't release such statistics; there will be a huge international and local backlash if it does so. Or perhaps you could provide some?
2) haha True freedom of speech is beyond our imagination. But I do agree with you that all the other stuff is pretty real down here. My point was that how far are we willing to enahnce it. Today's NYT carried an article which mentioned that a couple's "intimate moments" at a park was captured by a spy camera tracking some alleged cyclist criminals. Out of common decency, a reputable newspaper such as NYT will not define "intimate moments" exactly, but we can probably guess what the term refers to. If you ask for more surveillance, that is what you are asking for.
the pikamaster -
I'm just a decent guy with common sense.
Terrorists must be confronted and destroyed, period. There is no room for appeasement or they will be emboldened.
Torture must be used if necessary to get information from them so that innocent lives can be saved.
I'm so glad our govt has adopted a no nonsence approach towards terrorists and put them behind bars w/o trial and milk information from them in order to keep us safe. -
Salman,
1) Somehow I believe that "sovereign rights" have been trumped up too much. And anyway, the issue is not whether they should be doing what tehy do; it is about *why* they are doing it.
2) The origins of Al Quaeda can be traced back to the 1970s when the USA drove off the Soviets from Afghanistan. In order to get enough manpower, the USA elicited the support of local resistance groups, one which was led by a graduate from both a Middle-Eastern and an American university who was named Osama bin Laden. To aid the offensive against the USSR, the USA "lent" the resistance groups weapons, including WMDs (which they are trying to find back now) and provided them military training. And so they drove out the Soviets. But then USA found itself in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam war and promptly withdrew wholesale from Afghanistan. Without the might of the USAF, the country ended up re-conquered by the USSR, who installed the then-puppet rulers the Taleban. And so the resistance groups felt extreme fury, and ... the rest is the history of post cold-war terrorism.
Anyway, terrorists are technically not against Asians; they are against Westerners and governments who support the West.
3) Perhaps you should read more closely the section relating to prisoners-of-war. I have read the Convention too, u know.
4) your reply here is rather incoherent. Perhaps you need to check up your head. The analogy of mental patients is to stress the (medical) mental damage suffered by the torture victim before he provides his "admission of guilt". Under such mental damage, the information obtained might not be the absolute truth, as I ahve explaiend before.
5) Yes/No questions means that the interrogator has a larger capacity to obtain *desired* answers, not *accurate answers*, from torture. And that will hurt the investigation.
the (sad) pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
I think sovereign rights are very important. We can't have terrorists dictating our foreign policy or who we can or cannot make alliances with. We can't allow them to overthrow our govt and make us into a part of a caliphate!
Salman,
1) Somehow I believe that "sovereign rights" have been trumped up too much. And anyway, the issue is not whether they should be doing what tehy do; it is about *why* they are doing it.
I think the why they do it is trumped up too much.
Who cares why they want to interfere with our sovereign rights, as long as they do, we must destroy them. We cannot compromise our sovereinty as a nation.
Not true. Al Qaeda can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt who embarce a facistic doctrine of pan Arabic dominance of the world.
2) The origins of Al Quaeda can be traced back to the 1970s when the USA drove off the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Wrong again. Thats an often repeated lie. The US only supported those who ended up as the Northern Alliance. The Osama gang were funded by the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
In order to get enough manpower, the USA elicited the support of local resistance groups, one which was led by a graduate from both a Middle-Eastern and an American university who was named Osama bin Laden.
US never supplied any WMDs to Afghan resistance.
To aid the offensive against the USSR, the USA "lent" the resistance groups weapons, including WMDs (which they are trying to find back now) and provided them military training.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened only after both the Cuban missile crisis and Vietnam war was long over, what are you talking about mister?
And so they drove out the Soviets. But then USA found itself in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam war and promptly withdrew wholesale from Afghanistan.
I understand you try to make anti US propaganda but such blatant historical revisionism won't fool anyone.
Reconquered by USSR? You mean Afghanistan was conquered by USSR before? Are you sure you know history?
Without the might of the USAF, the country ended up re-conquered by the USSR, who installed the then-puppet rulers the Taleban. And so the resistance groups felt extreme fury, and ... the rest is the history of post cold-war terrorism.
How can they not be against Asians when they are bombing Asians more than they bomb the west?
Anyway, terrorists are technically not against Asians; they are against Westerners and governments who support the West.
I read it, in fact I studied it, terrorists don't get protection under the Geneva Convention. I'm very sure you haven't read it at all. Don't play play with Salman. You are very bodoh.
3) Perhaps you should read more closely the section relating to prisoners-of-war. I have read the Convention too, u know.
Might not be true, might be true. The interrogators will know, they are not as dumb as you.
4) your reply here is rather incoherent. Perhaps you need to check up your head. The analogy of mental patients is to stress the (medical) mental damage suffered by the torture victim before he provides his "admission of guilt". Under such mental damage, the information obtained might not be the absolute truth, as I ahve explaiend before.
They have more than yes/no questions in their bag of tricks my friend, you don't have to worry. They know what to do and how to do it.
5) Yes/No questions means that the interrogator has a larger capacity to obtain *desired* answers, not *accurate answers*, from torture. And that will hurt the investigation.
the (sad) pikamaster -
Salman,
1) You mean we cannot let them claim the sovereignty of PAP. To think about it actually, a benevolent caliphate might not be worse than our current administration. After all, Saladdin was much kinder to Christians than the Europeans were to the Muslims in their countries. I don't believe that the terrorists have any real idea of political leadership. Since they are masquerading as liberators, they might most conveniently install local Muslims in the government and even if the civil service, executive and legislative are Islamized, the officials' quality is a different matter. I don't believe local Muslims will start a purge of the other religious groups.
And please don't accuse me of supporting international terrorism. I am simply doing an extrapolation here.
2) What links Osama physically to the Muslim Brotherhood apart from the fact that he might have studied their hsitory at uni?
3) I read my information from the book written by Saddam's daughter-in-law. Where did you get your information from?
4) What did they lend them then?
5) Ok, I admit, I have muddled up my timeline a bit, but nonetheless the main point is that the USA withdrew because of its private considerations. Actually, I think that the reason was Detente.
6) Before the USA came along, USSR had more or less annexed Afghanistan. the USAF drove away the Russian troops.
7) Note where they are bombing in Asia. The Bali bomber explained to the authorities very clearly that he was aiming not for the native Indonesians, but for the Australian and British tourists who frequent there. Similarly, the terrroists have been targeting British, American and Australian embassies. They have not attacked Indonesian, Malaysian or Singaporean or Chinese embassies.
Quote me the article then. And don't call me "bodoh". It's rude.
9) Torture gives the interrogators power; look at what happened at Abu Ghraib. Unfortunately, it is human nature to get drunk on this power, and the emotional sadism filling up the torturer will override his/ her rationality.
10) If they have more "tricks on the bag", as you put it, then why can't they find a trick that doesn't involve torture?
the pikamaster -
Hey guys / gals,
dualplex reminds all of us that we have digressed from the central topic of this thread. Perhaps someone should redirect it? After all, this thread is not meant to be on the validity of torture.
the pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
No compromise mister. No compromise of our national sovereinty.
Salman,
1) You mean we cannot let them claim the sovereignty of PAP. To think about it actually, a benevolent caliphate might not be worse than our current administration. After all, Saladdin was much kinder to Christians than the Europeans were to the Muslims in their countries. I don't believe that the terrorists have any real idea of political leadership. Since they are masquerading as liberators, they might most conveniently install local Muslims in the government and even if the civil service, executive and legislative are Islamized, the officials' quality is a different matter. I don't believe local Muslims will start a purge of the other religious groups.
I don't think JI is kind to anyone.
Thats good enough links. They share the same bigotry.
And please don't accuse me of supporting international terrorism. I am simply doing an extrapolation here.
2) What links Osama physically to the Muslim Brotherhood apart from the fact that he might have studied their hsitory at uni?.
Saddam's daughter-in-law? Thats like getting information from the wicked witch of the east.
3) I read my information from the book written by Saddam's daughter-in-law. Where did you get your information from?
4) What did they lend them then?
USA withdrew? They were never there in the first place my friend.
5) Ok, I admit, I have muddled up my timeline a bit, but nonetheless the main point is that the USA withdrew because of its private considerations. Actually, I think that the reason was Detente.
6) Before the USA came along, USSR had more or less annexed Afghanistan. the USAF drove away the Russian troops.
Its an attack on Indonesia alright. Its Indonesian soil and dozens of Indonesians were killed.
7) Note where they are bombing in Asia. The Bali bomber explained to the authorities very clearly that he was aiming not for the native Indonesians, but for the Australian and British tourists who frequent there. Similarly, the terrroists have been targeting British, American and Australian embassies. They have not attacked Indonesian, Malaysian or Singaporean or Chinese embassies.
You are bloody bodoh and I'll say it again you bodoh! Quote me the article then. And don't call me "bodoh". It's rude.
And you think others are as bodoh as you, how bodoh can you get my friend?
Torture must be among those bag of tricks. Then they will have more tricks in the bag and thats good.
9) Torture gives the interrogators power; look at what happened at Abu Ghraib. Unfortunately, it is human nature to get drunk on this power, and the emotional sadism filling up the torturer will override his/ her rationality.
10) If they have more "tricks on the bag", as you put it, then why can't they find a trick that doesn't involve torture?
the pikamaster -
Salman,
1) Actually I never really understood the concept of "national sovereignty". This particular concept has been abused far too much by governments who refuse to correct their wrongdoings (including most shamefully our own and the USA). Which is why I referred to the sovereignty as being the PAP's, not that of the nation, which is composed by the citizens. If JI evolves like the IRA, then we could have a political wing of the JI, IMHO. (btw, I don't really know what "IMHO" stands for either.)
2) That is a link, but not a historical link; Al Quaeda is not the resurrected form of the Muslim Brotherhood. And btw, which "Ancient Egypt" are you referring to? Islam was not present in the time of the Pharoahs.
3) Ad hominems are ways of evading the truth. Whatever her relationship to Saddam - and btw, it is not a very close one as she had never really seen Saddam in person - it deosn't overshadow the fact that she is also an academic and that she has knowledge about certain issues, and probably better knowledge than the Americans.
4) The Soviets invaded. The USA struck back. Then, Detente arrived and the USA pulled out of Afghanistan, allowing its annexation by the Soviets. simple.
5) But the INTENT was not to kill Indonesians; it was to kill the Westerners, since, as the bomber himself acknowledged, the Balinese were his Muslim brothers and sisters as well; it was unfortuante thus, that antives were killed at all.
6) Slander doesn't make rational conversation.
7) If they have a trick that is as "effective" as torture, then they should use that trick in lieu of torture. "more tricks" ain't enough. You need good tricks to survive.
the (sad) pikamaster -
Torturing terrorists is good. It help save innocent lives.Originally posted by pikamaster:Salman,
1) Actually I never really understood the concept of "national sovereignty". This particular concept has been abused far too much by governments who refuse to correct their wrongdoings (including most shamefully our own and the USA). Which is why I referred to the sovereignty as being the PAP's, not that of the nation, which is composed by the citizens. If JI evolves like the IRA, then we could have a political wing of the JI, IMHO. (btw, I don't really know what "IMHO" stands for either.)[/quote]
No thanks mister, no caliphate in Singapore and no fanatics running this country.
They have no right to threaten our sovereignty and we need to destroy them.
I didn't say anything about ancient Egypt.
2) That is a link, but not a historical link; Al Quaeda is not the resurrected form of the Muslim Brotherhood. And btw, which "Ancient Egypt" are you referring to? Islam was not present in the time of the Pharoahs.
Saddam is evil and anyone who supports him is evil.
3) Ad hominems are ways of evading the truth. Whatever her relationship to Saddam - and btw, it is not a very close one as she had never really seen Saddam in person - it deosn't overshadow the fact that she is also an academic and that she has knowledge about certain issues, and probably better knowledge than the Americans.
The Americans were never in Afghanistan until after 911, period.
4) The Soviets invaded. The USA struck back. Then, Detente arrived and the USA pulled out of Afghanistan, allowing its annexation by the Soviets. simple.
It is Indonesian soil. They threaten the sovereiognty of Indonesia just like they did in Malaysia, Philiipines, Thailand, India, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Saudi, Qatar etc.
5) But the INTENT was not to kill Indonesians; it was to kill the Westerners, since, as the bomber himself acknowledged, the Balinese were his Muslim brothers and sisters as well; it was unfortuante thus, that antives were killed at all..
[quote]
7) If they have a trick that is as "effective" as torture, then they should use that trick in lieu of torture. "more tricks" ain't enough. You need good tricks to survive.
the (sad) pikamaster -
1) And still beg the question, what other methods can be used?Originally posted by pikamaster:SilverPal,
1) I wasn't indicating that we should charge the terrorist with more crimes, just that the interrogator has the moral superiority to obtain his information without resorting to torture.
2) I understand that. But let me ask you, if they would even scoff at the death penalty, why would they be afraid of torture? Couldn't they take it as a "trial" from Allah?
3) haha going to Hell? And of course losing the support of their followers.
the pikamaster
2) Various opponents of torture in this thread has already mentioned that "There are fates worst than death.", Trust me, even if you are not afraid of death, you would not be so sure about psychological torture.
3) once again the same question, other than various gross violations of human rights, how else are we to bring the fear of going to Hell and losing their supporters to them?
You keep insisting on attacking my stand and respond with vague solutions. If you have an idea, not necessarily better, just tell us. Don't keep reciting rules and textbook quotes to us and expect the world to be a better place. -
The textbook as well as common sense says that torture of terrorists for information is good.
-
I concede that privacy is a huge problem. In singapore there has been an on off debate about the trade off between privacy and security. I'm not going into that debate as it is not the crux of this exchange nor does it enhance anyone's position in the current debate.Originally posted by pikamaster:SilverPal,
1) nope, I don't have the statistics, and probably because CIA wouldn't release such statistics; there will be a huge international and local backlash if it does so. Or perhaps you could provide some?
2) haha True freedom of speech is beyond our imagination. But I do agree with you that all the other stuff is pretty real down here. My point was that how far are we willing to enahnce it. Today's NYT carried an article which mentioned that a couple's "intimate moments" at a park was captured by a spy camera tracking some alleged cyclist criminals. Out of common decency, a reputable newspaper such as NYT will not define "intimate moments" exactly, but we can probably guess what the term refers to. If you ask for more surveillance, that is what you are asking for.
the pikamaster
I posted a question to ALL opponents of torture before and only LazerLord had the decency to reply (ie torture AFTER conviction and ONLY when necessary) while all others side stepped my questions and continue to speak in vague generalities.
Question:
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?
Can you tell me a course of action instead of "torture is bad, don't believe, go and get tortured and try"?
Please don't answer with "with their million dollar salary, I'm sure the govt can think up of something" or "We can use another method other than torture.
Bonus Question:
If every opponent of torture agree that fierce interogation yields good result, then why does torture (interogation with physical/mental stress and duress involved) not work? -
So for our principles, we will convict them of perjury and obstruction of justice and murder, and conspiricy and grand treason, but we will NOT force information out of them!Originally posted by pikamaster:As usual, you are jumping the gun and making ridiculous conclusions just because you hate liberalism. Please read people's posts carefully before you make any comments. None of us - and definitely not me - is asking for terrorists to be given therapy, or to be "nice and understanding" toward them. (And anyway, once again you are jumping the gun; can you assure that the police are 100% right in every "crook" they nab?) We are saying that we must not let the terrorists drive us to forsake our own values and descend to their level, except perhaps for role-playing educational purposes. Interrogation can be fierce without including torture, physical or mental. The problem with you, Silverpal and your zealot authoritarian wackos is that you pple can't think of anything between the extreme of beating someone to death and giving him candy canes in prison.
Please think more carefully next time.
the (sad) pikamaster
Is that right?
What exactly is "fierce interrogation"? Instead of reading dictionary definations, reading rules written by sweet old ladies that has never been to war, wake up and think for once, WHAT CONSTITUTES FIERCE INTEROGATION???
Does it involve "spilling" coffee on the detainee's crotch area? Does it involve long hours of questioning without rest, toilet break or sleep? Does in involve shining a bright light into the face (eyes) of the detainee? Does it involve the use of linguistic binds to trick and stress the detainee? Does it include keeping all other forms of information and human interaction away from the detainee for an infinite period of time? Does it involve good cop/bad cop tactics?
All that is a mild form of TORTURE called PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE. Its still torture. Torture doesn't always involve bloodshed or plucking of nails with pliers. -
I think the type of torture techniques used are really very mild, but as long as it works, its OK.
As for privacy, notice that Bush's ratings are up after NY Times revealed that the govt has been monitoring communication of terrorists. I think the US people are indeed happy that the govt ios doing this to protect them and they don't mind it one bit. That makes a lot of sense. I mean I don't mind the govt monitoring me since I've got nothing to hide.