The Bucknuts Hot Spot

One of the problems on this thread, as playmea already pointed out, is that almost every poster is using their own definition of what is torture and what is an enhance interrogation technique (EIT). If the former is illegal and the later legal, then we need to accept an official, standard definition of them, especially torture. Otherwise you get the government moving a specific technique from one category to the other and poof the technique is now okay because the gov say it is an EIT as with Cheney and W regarding waterboarding. Here are two relevant sources:

http://www.irct.org/what-is-torture/defining-torture.aspx
"The most widely accepted definition of torture internationally is that set out by Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):

“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm
"PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques."

The way I read those, there is no question that waterboarding is torture and based upon the articles below it is both illegal and ineffective.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/05/02/close-the-book-on-torture-factsheet/
Corrects some of the claims made by Rodriguez in his book.

http://thinkprogress.org/report/why-enhanced-interrogation-failed/?mobile=nc
CONTENTS
I. TORTURE DOES NOT YIELD ACCURATE INTELLIGENCE
• Military, Intelligence Experts: Info From Enhanced Techniques Is Unreliable
• The Interrogations Of Zubaydah And KSM: Enhanced Techniques Produced No Actionable Intelligence
• Enhanced Interrogations Led To False Claims Of Iraq/Al Qaeda Link
II. TORTURE MAKES AMERICANS LESS SAFE
• Enhanced Interrogations Recruits Terrorists
• Enhanced Interrogations Puts American Soldiers At Risk
• Enhanced Interrogations Ruin Credibility Of Intelligence Agencies
• Enhanced Interrogations Strain Alliances
• Interrogations Ruined America’s Moral Authority
• Enhanced Interrogations Makes Terrorists Unprosecutable
III. HISTORICAL LESSONS CAUTION AGAINST ENHANCED TECHNIQUES
• Enhanced Techniques Derived From Ineffective Communist Tactics

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3441363.html
"After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

But in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed the United States had used the controversial technique to interrogate senior Al Qaeda suspects, and he said the White House did not consider waterboarding a form of torture."

And lastly, this article which I cited in a response to Paz outlines the problems with torture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2

Thanks for engaging in an intellectual exchange of information and opinions without the usual partisan tripe and the one-upmanship often seen on this board. Yes guys I am usually in the thick of such behavior. Just means I can appreciate it's absents even more.

Even if it meant trampling the rights of American Citizens who happen to be Sikhs, Arabs, Iranians, etc? Or do you just want to burn every muslim at the stake Spanish Inquisition style?

For people such as Bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I think this should be standard operating procedure... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6l5-Rup-D4 . You could have all of their captured followers sit in the front row. They'd talk.

Not directly related, but this is a CTC paper on some of the info found in Bin Laden's possession upon termination. Pretty interesting.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/LtrsFromAbottabad.pdf

Tim,

I don't view the terrorists as "enemy combatants" because they are not a recognized military force. Can you tell me what country they fight for or what their uniform looks like? Do they have a flag or a patch that is recognized on a battle field? Have they signed onto the Geneva Convention? Your literature alludes to behaviors awarded to captured military enemies. We can agree to disagree here, but I don't count terrorist as a military enemy.

Based on these definitions, we could never interrogate anyone, only interview them and hope they tells us something good. You’re a physiologist. Isn't being held against your will and forced to talk to people you hate a form of mental anguish? Don’t people lie and fabricate all the time to get out of meetings and situations when confronted? You get pulled over, you make an excuse and hope the cop is in a good mood...ducked a meeting, see the boss, have a plausible excuse.

I don't remember the terrorist groups awarding Daniel Pearl the journalist (or others) any type of fluffy rules to stand behind, in fact, I seem to remember him being beheaded on youtube. This behavior only stopped (at least publicly) after they realized it was undermining their support versus bolstering their bravado and cause. The terrorist also believe in a version of shiria law (fundamental islamist) that treats women as property and stones them for adultry, etc. The terrorist and hard core islamist are savages in some ways and the moderates do little to denounce it or point out the ones causing trouble. From this perspective, I apologize in advance for not feeling too bad about dumping buckets of water on a person declined on a board and blind folded.

In addition, I believe the US only used the EITs on three individuals that were High Value Targets (HVTs). It is not standard operating procedure and only used in extreme cases.

If, instead of killing bin laden, we had captured him, would it have been ok to treat him in this fashion? What if it prevented an attack on RPSD? Everyone has a point where the means justify the end, just like everyone has a point where they can be bought, see politicians, lobbyist, and business.

It is easy to sit back and throw stones and cast generalizations on a case of very limited problems. This is the problem with government and politicians, it is always about an exception to the rule versus getting the rule correct to represent the 80-90% of the masses.

Agree, it has been nice to abstain from the typical partisan BS in this thread.

Some in the know say enhanced interogation works and some say it doesn't. Pick your poison. Most conservatives believe it works. Most liberals don't believe it works.

You need to get out of your flag dress and stop thinking everything this country does is not good. Funny how you can accuse me of hate when you and the others are constantly hating Obama.

Still reading on a second grade level I see. If you could read and comprehend as well as my 8 year old granddaughter you would not make fun of the source because as identified it is a quote from the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation.

And if you beat the hell out of the person and you end up wasting your time going to the wrong place or places, how does that help you? After I had received the correct location by using scientifically tested interrogation techniques, then I would come back and beat the guy to a pulp.

Given the physical distance between us, I think it is pretty clear that any stink of filth you are smelling is emanating from yourself.

Take a bath, get a job - so sayeth the Newtster.

About the sources...

"Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. Through this blog, CAPAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies. ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards."

Editor = Faiz Shakir (just Google... no more need be said)

Tim - Respectfully agree to disagree.

We don't have a moral issue. 55 Gallon drums full of water with car batteries, metal bed frames with car batteries hooked up to them, pulling fingernails out, using mustard gas nazi style on political enemies or portions of your secular population, or beheading people on al jazera (you tube) compared to a controlled environment in which we water boarded a few people is not a moral issue. It might be a public perception issues, but those looking for reasons to dislike the US had them well before we engaged in renditions (BTW, not just used in Iraq) and EITs. I say the moral issue is on the journalist who find these things out and broadcast them to everyone instead of letting the military police itself and keep it internal. The moral issue is undermining the NSA program started by GWB b/c you don’t like some of his politics. The moral issue is screaming foul Valerie Jarret when you were knee deep in the politics and got caught up in the cross fire. The moral issue is how much treason do we allow in the country before someone gets a death sentence? That would stop a lot of this anonymous source horseshit. The moral issue is endangering soft targets like US citizens abroad, regardless of party affiliation, because someone has political ax to grind...yep, actual torture versus a fraternity hazing used on our own troops in SERE training, sounds immoral to me.

How do you explain the continuation of many of GWBs policies? GITMO is still open, we had the five ready to confess before we thought we should move the trial to federal courts in NY. Why was the Patriot Act renewed, and strengthened, instead of being repealed and abandoned. The US might not like to talk about EITs, but I would bet they are still happening, maybe just not the water boarding treatment. How do you explain the actions prior to 9/11? The USS Cole, Ok City Bombing (domestic terrorism), the first attempt on the Twin Towers (92?), Beirut, etc...the list of folks that dislike the US is long and extends back into at least the 70's with the Ayatollahs and Khadafi.

Next you will tell me we shouldn't deprive them of sleep, isolate them, and play load music 24/7 and that we should offer them clean sheets, warm milk, and a cookie before we tuck them in at night with the promise of a trip to starbucks when they wake up and an ergonomically designed chair for their “meet and great” with the interrogators. The non-EIT treatment sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me when we could water board a couple guys, break them with little effort and get on with it.

One thing the book I referenced points out about the "terrorist" is that they are supposed to hold out until their life is endangered. After they have met this obligation to themselves and their mission, they are allowed to divulge information without fear of their life or retribution to their families.

We can agree to disagree on whether water boarding or other EITs work or are effective. The government knows the answer. They will do what is most effective to protect us regardless of how you or I feel about the subject. I will give them the latitude to water board a few select individuals if they fill it appropriate, but would expect it to be on a case-by-case basis with approval. Just to make it real clear, I have read the links you posted and understand your viewpoint, but am not sure I trust the sources or their conclusions. It's an all or nothing, which I have a problem with. I don't want to handcuff our intelligence community and paint them into a box if they feel like they need it, thus keeping the tool box as full as possible. I also don't want terrorist thinking they can out last us because we can't do a specific treatment. Your study of psychology should lead you to understand that humans can endure more pain (mental or physical) when they feel they are in control of the process and can end it at any time.

I have never once hated on Obama on this board. You truly have no where to go do you? You have no defense so all you can do is accuse me of things that don't exist. Please, keep replying and embarrass yourself.

Funny how you can not defend your obvious hate so you constantly try to deflect. Nobody is buying it. We know what kind of person you are. You've made it too obvious too many times.