Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

[Derek 2.0]

Didn't say they didn't use it. Of course they did. That's why they determined how it had such unproductive outcomes.

No, they just stopped doing it directly, but like the United States, made use of rendition for terror suspects, and would even pass along questions to be asked by intelligence services that made use of torture.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, they just stopped doing it directly, but like the United States, made use of rendition for terror suspects, and would even pass along questions to be asked by intelligence services that made use of torture.

You don't seem to understand, it doesn't matter who is actually pulling out the fingernails. The outcomes have been shown to be dubious at best, faulty in general.

[On Guard for Thee]

It also gets you a lot of really bad PR. Recall Abu Ghraib? No good info just a lot of bad press.

[Derek 2.0]

You don't seem to understand, it doesn't matter who is actually pulling out the fingernails. The outcomes have been shown to be dubious at best, faulty in general.

I do understand.....I also understand that you have no clue on what you're talking about with regards to MI6 and it's use of rendition to torture......and not just dribbling water over someone's head, but sending suspects to places where their fingernails would be pulled out.........

The outcomes have shown that softer techniques, coupled with the actual threat of torture do work.

[Derek 2.0]

It also gets you a lot of really bad PR. Recall Abu Ghraib? No good info just a lot of bad press.

How much bad press has Diego Garcia received? Big difference between an actual intelligence operation and some trailer-trash National Guardsmen and women....

[On Guard for Thee]

How much bad press has Diego Garcia received? Big difference between an actual intelligence operation and some trailer-trash National Guardsmen and women....

I do have a very good clue about MI 6. But you are right about Abu Ghraib "trailer trash" just another example of how torture techniques tend to backfire badly.

[Derek 2.0]

I do have a very good clue about MI 6.

I doubt it.....or you would have known of their use of rendition to torture, as such, wouldn't have suggested otherwise.

But you are right about Abu Ghraib "trailer trash" just another example of how torture techniques tend to backfire badly.

Like the CAR in Somalia, that was not a sanctioned event.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

I doubt it.....or you would have known of their use of rendition to torture, as such, wouldn't have suggested otherwise.

Like the CAR in Somalia, that was not a sanctioned event.

Abu Ghraib wasn't sanctioned? Surely you jest.

[Derek 2.0]

Abu Ghraib wasn't sanctioned? Surely you jest.

It wasn't, hence why the perpetrators were tried and convicted under US military law……..like our own ordeal with the CAR.

[AngusThermopyle]

Like the CAR in Somalia, that was not a sanctioned event.

Yes and no. It was officially not sanctioned however such behaviour was tacitly encouraged by those in positions of the highest authority present. It is a fact that Col Labbe offered a reward of a case of champaign to the first person to kill a Somali. You may not want to believe it however your desire to not do so does not change that fact. I was there, I spent time with the Airborne before I got my ass over to the RCD. There are many more examples of such encouragement. Perhaps not so extreme but all adding to an overall atmosphere of encouraging unacceptable behaviour. If you wish I could give you many more examples. Examples that never made their way into any official account of what happened there over that period of time.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes and no. It was officially not sanctioned however such behaviour was tacitly encouraged by those in positions of the highest authority present. It is a fact that Col Labbe offered a reward of a case of champaign to the first person to kill a Somali. You may not want to believe it however your desire to not do so does not change that fact. I was there, I spent time with the Airborne before I got my ass over to the RCD. There are many more examples of such encouragement. Perhaps not so extreme but all adding to an overall atmosphere of encouraging unacceptable behaviour. If you wish I could give you many more examples. Examples that never made their way into any official account of what happened there over that period of time.

I’ll rephrase…not nationally sanctioned by the elected Government, nor the upper echelons from within Camp Confusion on the Rideau....

[Big Guy]

...

. If you wish I could give you many more examples. Examples that never made their way into any official account of what happened there over that period of time.

Please do, here and to the proper authorities.

[Argus]

Singing the praises of the Gestapo. Yeah let's just degrade humanity back to that way of thinking!

Are you really that stupid you can't understand the difference between pointing out that torture sometimes works, and advocating for torture?

[Argus]

The outcomes have shown that softer techniques, coupled with the actual threat of torture do work.

It would depend on the individual. Sometimes you can get them drunk and chat with them, or sometimes just befriend them over a period of time and reassure them, but sometimes only harsher methods work.

Torture most certainly DOES work. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. A victim of torture will eventually tell his tormenter anything he wants. And yes, in the hands of inexpert interrogators that would simply mean agreeing with anything they're told to say. I'm speaking more about surrendering real information. That's why governments have used it for thousands of years.

To insist something doesn't work simply because it's wrong to do it is silly.

[Derek 2.0]

To insist something doesn't work simply because it's wrong to do it is silly.

I never did.......clearly the threat of torture helps with more gentler methods.

[AngusThermopyle]

Please do, here and to the proper authorities.

Oh yes! What a brilliant idea. The authorities would be panting and eager to hear me tell them about the attitudes displayed in a closed event that happened 24 or 25 years ago. Are you truly so naive as to believe they want to hear about some individuals encouraging reprehensible actions and behaviour? Honestly, are you really so naive as to believe that?

[Big Guy]

Oh yes! What a brilliant idea. The authorities would be panting and eager to hear me tell them about the attitudes displayed in a closed event that happened 24 or 25 years ago. Are you truly so naive as to believe they want to hear about some individuals encouraging reprehensible actions and behaviour? Honestly, are you really so naive as to believe that?

I do not believe that there is a time limitation on truth and justice - for anyone.

[guyser]

Nope. Professionals don't go to that type of extreme. That's a common misconception. Another common misconception is that waterboarding is or was used routinely. It wasn't It wasn't only used a handful of times, on three particular individuals. And only after every other form of interrogation was tried and used.

Absolutely ridiculous and really not worth discussing with you since you have an abject problem with honesty.

Its been used throughout history, it is considered torture by all leading authorities including your teenage fantasy land the US , CIA operatives coud only last 14 seconds which for adults means it is incredibly brutal and torturous.

Your analogies to abortion are completely childish ....and par for the norm.

[AngusThermopyle]

I do not believe that there is a time limitation on truth and justice - for anyone.

So tell me then, what do you think should happen? Lets see, I contact the authorities and tell them "hey guys remember Somalia? Well a bunch of people who were there had really bad attitudes and some of them could even be said to have encouraged unprofessional and even illegal actions." Then I could say " this attitude probably contributed to the scandal that occurred, you know, that one that has been fully dealt with and resolved by drastic means."

Are you truly so out of touch with reality that you think anyone would give a good god damn about it? And once again I'll ask, what do you think should be done? Do you think they should track down a bunch of guys 20+ years after the fact and tell them they're going to be hammered down for their attitudes at the time? Attitudes that in large part stemmed from a breakdown in leadership and lack of oversight, the fostering of a general lack of respect for directives.

Due to forum rules I'm constrained from honestly mentioning how out of touch with reality you appear to be. I suggest you think a little more in realistic terms about what you are postulating here.

Actually, I have to ask. Are you a person who believes that what was done to resolve and close this episode was insufficient? Would you like to launch a witch hunt and go after everyone who was there so they could be grilled and perhaps punished severely? Even after the legal conclusion of this occurrence?

Edited August 7, 2014 by AngusThermopyle

[GostHacked]

It would depend on the individual. Sometimes you can get them drunk and chat with them, or sometimes just befriend them over a period of time and reassure them, but sometimes only harsher methods work.

Torture most certainly DOES work. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. A victim of torture will eventually tell his tormenter anything he wants. And yes, in the hands of inexpert interrogators that would simply mean agreeing with anything they're told to say. I'm speaking more about surrendering real information. That's why governments have used it for thousands of years.

To insist something doesn't work simply because it's wrong to do it is silly.

If you are not getting the correct information, meaning the person being tortured will say anything for it to stop. So you are getting a false confession. That means it does not work. Not they way they intend for it to work.

[Big Guy]

So tell me then, what do you think should happen? Lets see, I contact the authorities and tell them "hey guys remember Somalia? Well a bunch of people who were there had really bad attitudes and some of them could even be said to have encouraged unprofessional and even illegal actions." Then I could say " this attitude probably contributed to the scandal that occurred, you know, that one that has been fully dealt with and resolved by drastic means."

Are you truly so out of touch with reality that you think anyone would give a good god damn about it? And once again I'll ask, what do you think should be done? Do you think they should track down a bunch of guys 20+ years after the fact and tell them they're going to be hammered down for their attitudes at the time? Attitudes that in large part stemmed from a breakdown in leadership and lack of oversight, the fostering of a general lack of respect for directives.

Due to forum rules I'm constrained from honestly mentioning how out of touch with reality you appear to be. I suggest you think a little more in realistic terms about what you are postulating here.

Actually, I have to ask. Are you a person who believes that what was done to resolve and close this episode was insufficient? Would you like to launch a witch hunt and go after everyone who was there so they could be grilled and perhaps punished severely? Even after the legal conclusion of this occurrence?

Your reality is obviously not my reality. I would not have let time and interest to wane and allow those responsible to avoid responsibility. It is never too late to do the right thing. You did and are doing what you did and are doing. As to how you describe the situation, I would not have done the same and would be doing something different right now.

There is no statute of limitations for the truth.

Besides, that is just my opinion. Why care what an anonymous individual on one of thousands of obscure electronic bulletin boards thinks?

Thank you for your candor.

[On Guard for Thee]

Are you really that stupid you can't understand the difference between pointing out that torture sometimes works, and advocating for torture?

Are you really that stupid you don't see they go hand in hand?

[Bonam]

Are you really that stupid you don't see they go hand in hand?

Whether they go hand in hand or not, it's the objective question of whether torture works that was under debate, rather than the ethical implications of where the answer to that question might lead.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Bonam

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope. Professionals don't go to that type of extreme. That's a common misconception. Another common misconception is that waterboarding is or was used routinely. It wasn't It wasn't only used a handful of times, on three particular individuals. And only after every other form of interrogation was tried and used. Think of it just like abortion. Safe, legal and rare.

Wasn't used routinely and only a hnadful of times huh? You realize you are quoting the "official" CIA report on it's own actions. Which refers to Gitmo. They maybe forgot to tell you of all the other "black" sites such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Morocco etc., where it and other torture techniques were used routinely. The results often fruitless providing false or innacurate information. It is reported that during his years in Rumania and Poland Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so called 9-11 matermind was waterboarded over a hundred times before he was eventually transfered to Gitmo. They came to the conclusion they may eventually have to put him on trial and he'd have to be "sane" for that so they backed off.

[Argus]

Are you really that stupid you don't see they go hand in hand?

Bullshit. Acknowledging torture works is not advocating it. As I said, thousands of years of governmental and religious agencies have known that and still know that. It might not be nice or moral or ethical but it certainly works.

Hiding your head in the sand about it is pointless and stupid.