Seems there might be some disagreement in the Clinton household:

Hillary To Russert: Bill And I Aren't The Same Person, Tim

what do we think about it here? Is torure acceptable under "extreme circumstances", and if so, what defines extreme?

A lot of the answer to this question depends on just exactly what your definition of torture is. In other words, just exactly where is the line between legitimate activity and 'torture' drawn?

I think that almost everyone would agree that causing extreme physical pain through causing extreme physical injury is torture. You know... for instance using red-hot pieces of metal to cause burns... Amputation of fingers, toes, etc...

What about techniques that extreme physical pain while doing only slight, if any, physical injury?

The dictionary definition of torture also includes, in addition to physical pain, causing mental 'anguish' as well... Things like a sensory deprivation tank... waterboarding (mentioned a lot in the thread)... heck, even solitary confinement could be considered torture under the dictionary definition... Heh, even a favorite police technique, that of 'letting them sweat it out a while alone in the interrogation room' is in jeopardy under the dictionary definition. It is, after all, done for the EXPRESS purpose of causing the suspect some mental anguish, as is the classic line your mothers tell you after they catch you misbehaving: "Go to your room, and wait until your father gets home".

Where do we draw the line? What is acceptable and what isn't? Remember, torture isn't always used as an interrogation technique, but also as a punishment. I am sure that many of us would regard the public whipping with a cane that kid in Singapore got a number of years ago for vandalizing that automobile as 'torture'. If one takes the dictionary definition at face value, even confinement in prison would not be allowed, as the confinement would lead to at least a certain level of mental anguish. What is acceptable, and what isn't?

As to that 'bomb in a city of 2 million people' scenario discussed previously in this thread...

Do we invoke the doctrine that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'? Can we afford to do so? Can we afford not to do so? How many does the 'many' have to number in order to override the 'few'?

These questions do not have easy answers.

In my opinion, 'torture' at a level below 'extreme physical pain caused by extreme physical injury' is, at times, justified. That is to say, red-hot pokers, traumatic amputation, and the like should never be allowed. However, sometimes the situation might, maybe, be of sufficient gravity to justify at least some level of 'mental torture'. Situations where if it is not done, a large number of innocent lives would be at grave risk.

Back to the 'bomb-in-the-city' scenario. If it is just a regular bomb (and you can't disarm it), placed in a large building, just evacuate the building and maybe a few surrounding buildings, let it go *BOOM*, and then prosecute the dufus you caught planting it.

However, if the bomb is something like a 20 megaton thermonuclear device, you don't have a prayer in hell of evacuating every one of the millions of people in the 'kill zone' in 2 hours. 2 days, maybe, but not in 2 hours. Perhaps then its time to get a little more... vigorous... in one's interrogation techniques on the dufus you caught setting it. Perhaps in this case, it is time to bring in a modern-day Torquemada.

What do you tell the families of those millions??

Tell them, sorry, but "We don't do body counts" ~General Tommy Franks... ;)

What a joke.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Your moral code here fails you because you don't know that they are an innocent party, in fact, the only reason you would be interrogating them in the first place is because you reasonably believe that they AREN'T an innocent party, that they do have in information you need. Anything else is just a waste of time.

You're right, I don't know that a particular individual is innocent, however, presumption of innocence is also an article of US jurisprudence.

Bobby, that's not an argument about morality at all, it's a legal one that still fails you. A presumption of innocence is for the purposes of a trial, so that the trier of fact (the judge or the jury) looks at the evidence impartially. People are arrested and detained PRECISELY BECAUSE they are actually presumed to be guilty. If there is reasonable evidence that they did it, the presumption is actually of guilt, that's why they are detained. In a crappy cell, sometimes for days on end. Just like interrogation, you don't bother to arrest 100 people and just let them stew. You only arrest someone if you reasonably believe that they AREN'T an innocent party. It's the same with interrogation, you only interrogate someone when you have evidence to reasonably believe that they have the information you need.

Even that article you mention notes the presumption of guilt in every day practice, one example is that often an applicant must prove their innocent of drug use by taking a pre-employment drug test. The presumption is of guilt, just as it is in the law.

You see, in essence you are sacrificing the lives of others (a child, a platoon of soldiers, or a city) because of your unwillingness to be wrong.

That and that I also believe in the rule of law.

I guess I don't know what you want there. This stuff is kinda illegal everywhere. I say kinda because it is routine and mundane and it's rare that anyone would be prosecuted for it, everyone that matters looks the other way, and the laws are pretty weak, on purpose. But be that as it may, the legal argument isn't enough to prevent it happening. All that has provided is a crutch for why ~you~ wouldn't do it.

So I'll ask you again: You could save the life of the person most valuable to you in this world, and you reasonably believe that the suspect in front of you has the information to do so. In fact, they're sneering at you, noting that they'll never tell you a thing. How far would YOU go to save your loved one? And why? Would you sacrifice your loved one to the "rule of law" that you know is just a bromide for public consumption?

One could easily make the argument that that is by far the more immoral position because the actual lives of other people are taken in lieu of your feelings about the situation.

So you say, but I don't believe it's been made yet.

I'll make it even simpler for you:

Argument: "It is immoral to sacrifice the lives of others (a child, a platoon of soldiers, a city) to your unwillingness to cause terrible discomfort..." Reasoning: "...because lives are the ultimate value of a human being and as such their lives outweigh the the possibility of error in causing the extreme discomfort of another.

Argument: "Their lives outweigh the the possibility of error in causing the extreme discomfort of another..." Reasoning: "...because the pain or distress the subject feels, however severe, is not comparable to the costs of the lives at stake."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Some interrogators don't know the difference and want the informations they expect to get at all costs - then they become torturers.

Duh, welcome to reality. People make mistakes. They go overboard. Some cops do the same thing. Some doctors leave their patients dead on the operating table. There are always risks with human interactions, that doesn't mean that we don't interact.

Still no reason for violence and torture.

Thorin, that wasn't the point, you either missed or evaded it again. Some people will ALWAYS torture others. It happens everywhere. Serial killers. Extremely malicious children. Cops. And yes, even interrogators that go overboard. That will ALWAYS happen because some people will ALWAYS simply do it. But, of course, that wasn't the point. The point was that even though some small number of interrogators will always do that, that isn't sufficient reason to stop all interrogation.

You tell me Thorin, here's the problem that an interrogator faces nearly every single time: They simply don't know. They don't know the answer. They suspect they have the right guy, but they don't know. They think he knows what they need, but they don't know. They think they can get the information in time, but they don't know. So what would you do? How much discomfort will you dish out, knowing full well that no matter how likely you are to be correct, you might not be.

I'm waiting for your answer here.

What about psychological tricks? You don't necessarily need the violence of torture to get quick information. You don't even need to threaten with violence to make them give you the information you need deliberately when you do it right.

I'm still waiting for your answer here. So what would you do? How much discomfort will you dish out, knowing full well that no matter how likely you are to be correct, you might not be.

But once again, you know nothing about which you speak, you have no idea whatsoever, yet you do blather on. OF COURSE you use psych tricks. Get this: Somewhere near 90+ percent of anyone you begin to interrogate sings at the first opportunity. After that you use psych tricks, Mutt and Jeff, Ego Up and Down, et cetera, you use a combination of all those things to break them. Menstrual blood on a Koran. Pork. Religious attacks. Futility. Any of those things. Most are very effective. Even then you can use the threat of waterboarding, whether you actually intend to use it or not. All that stuff is tried first. No one in their right mind just sets up a waterboard and then uses it. That's a waste of time and isn't necessary.

Feel free to believe this all you wish. Normally you do not have weeks to get the information you need. You have minutes and hours and if you are *really* lucky, you have a day or two.

Still no reason to terrorize or torture people. To advocate this sadistic procedure even on suspects is just like advocating fascism.

That this is reason enough for you (about the only time that "because you sez so" is a valid argument (you lucked out)) does not mean it is reason enough for others. They disagree with you. They don't care what you think they are advocating. Knowing that people like you call them "fascists" and hold up a bevy of unrelated signs at anti-war rallies is little more than a source of amusement.

Any human is to be treated as innocent until their guilt is proved. That's the law. And even interrogators have to follow the law.

Heh. That's just more classic naiveté. Just as all speeders do, and all tax evaders do, and all cops do, and all CEOs do. Earth to Thorin: no, they don't, any more than any of these other people do.

That they don't do follow the laws doesn't mean they are't supposed to follow them. Ad AFAIK the laws allow no expectatios, they are valid for everyone within the country where they are valid.

Sure. Just like speeding. Everyone does it. And no one cares. And a few people get tickets. And it STILL goes on because it's a part of every day life that simply cannot be enforced. That people are supposed to follow your precious gov't rules doesn't mean that they do, or that they should.

The gov'ts and organizations that they work for condone interrogation in private while decrying it in public.

That's just hypocrisy, and makes it even worse.

Yeah, you note that, and yet you constantly advocate to give the hypocrites even greater powers over everyone. What a great plan.

You don't just water board everyone for the hell of it.

Well, I wouldn't "water board" no-one in that case.
As the saying goes: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

Yay. Another bromide from Thorin. No argument, just empty sentiment.

Note to you from first hand experience. Most of these guys are deadly competent. They are well trained and very effective.

Oh, and if they had an empty motto referring to you it would be "Who cares what they think?" I mean, it doesn't look good on a shoulder patch, but it has a ring to it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, I made that clear. Torture is self-evidently wrong, interrogation is not for the reasons stated earlier.

"Interrogations" with water boarding is torture, full stop.

Oh boy, you simply repeated your position again as if it were somehow more convincing if you say it again! Again, "I hate it, it's bad, I hate it, it's really bad, and I extra hate it because I said I hate it a number of times...and now I'm really saying it again and I added 'full stop,'" isn't an argument.

Well, other than to you, maybe. No one in the position cares that you think that, especially because you haven't presented any reasons to convince them that their position is wrong.

Just because you sez so it's not different.

Which is why I haven't done that. As previously noted, I present arguments, in the general format of "[argument/conclusion] because [reasoning]."

The end doesn't justify the means. Water boarding is always torture, inflicting pain on a detainee is always torture. If torture is self-evidently wrong, everything that's done with torture is self-evidently wrong.

Which is why I said that you have to differentiate between torture and interrogation. While some interrogators may go overboard and torture someone, that is simply wrong. But by no means is all interrogation going to consist of torture. That's mostly a waste of time.

Take waterboarding for example. It's used because it is extremely effective, and get this: it isn't for the most part painful. It causes sheer panic, but it doesn't leave scars and it doesn't cause extreme pain, well maybe the water up your nose feeling (don't you hate that?) but that's about it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The truth is we all take stands, have positions, set our standards etc but circumstances can change things and people big time - agree?

The numbers do not matter, if you are wrong (and you cannot discount the possibility), what you have is 1M or 2M or whatever number chosen dead, plus one innocent that has been tortured. That is not a 'greater good' or even a 'lesser evil', it is greater overall suffering. I fail to see the moral case for this position.

Hence the dilemma. Is there greater utility in preventing the extreme discomfort of one individual or greater utility in the possibility of saving x number of people?

And then further, if your only argument is that you happen to feel that there is greater utility in preventing the discomfort, others will happen to feel that the possibility is of greater utility--hence, they'll do as you do to them, and disregard the conflicting opinion.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I think the whole 2M might be innocent too of course. My questions were predicated on the guilt of the detainee being 100% certain - let's assume that is beyond all doubt. Surely then it is the greater good?

When you can describe how such a situation would arise, that you had a detainee that you knew without doubt had knowledge that you didn't already possess, and that this knowledge would save another, only then could I accept your conclusion. The situation you describe goes to the very core of the matter, how can you know what another person knows?

As I've said previously, you can't. You can only make an educated guess based on the evidence you have. That may be pretty conclusive, it may be pretty thin. The suspect may have been caught red handed making another bomb. He may have been caught driving a getaway car, or supplying illegal materials, or anywhere in between. Now you have to make a decision based on the information you have.

If it's not worth it, you let them go. If you become convinced they don't know anything you let them go. If you become convinced otherwise, that they do have what you need, what then?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

My God man!!! Put the coffee cup down and take a deep breath of fresh air... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Indeed, it was the reason I started this thread. I'm not sure that my case is as bulletproof as it may appear.

Well, since it doesn't appear that way at all, no worries. Especially when you say "No, torture is still not acceptable, even when it is proposed to be used against a person guilty of the crimes you describe," without any reason whatsoever. You could have put "To me," on the front of that and it would have been perfectly acceptable. But that's not of any concern, you don't have that job.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The truth is we all take stands, have positions, set our standards etc but circumstances can change things and people big time - agree?

The numbers do not matter, if you are wrong (and you cannot discount the possibility), what you have is 1M or 2M or whatever number chosen dead, plus one innocent that has been tortured. That is not a 'greater good' or even a 'lesser evil', it is greater overall suffering. I fail to see the moral case for this position.

Hence the dilemma. Is there greater utility in preventing the extreme discomfort of one individual or greater utility in the possibility of saving x number of people?

And then further, if your only argument is that you happen to feel that there is greater utility in preventing the discomfort, others will happen to feel that the possibility is of greater utility--hence, they'll do as you do to them, and disregard the conflicting opinion.

Seems to me that this is a Utilitarian position, with all the moral issues involved.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If you're old enough, and were a resident of the UK at the time, try to recall the number of bomb alerts that were provided during the IRA's campaigns. When the authorites did receive 'coded warnings' in some cases, at least, that information was passed on to the public (I say "some cases" because I've no knowledge of when that information was not passed on).

Well yes I am. I was turned away from the pub "The Tavern in the Town" by the bouncers because the place was heaving. 30 minutes later I counted my lucky stars I was still alive. I have a friend who was in the pub who has been deaf ever since and his girlfriend lost an arm. Many innocents died.

It may be because of my experience above that I would, in all probability, try and save the 2M and torture the terrorist. Even though he may be innocent I just would not be able to risk not finding out how to save the many. I would at least know he was more guilty than any of the 2M. I say that in spite of the fact my father, who is Irish and came to help Britain during the war, was severly assaulted by co workers over the 10 days following the bombing. He was innocent of course but that's how people reacted to the outrage. It was a rough time for sure. Friends injured and father beaten. As you can imagine when you are involved - as I tried to put you in the hypothetical seat of involvement - one thinks and reacts differently because its real and in front of you: fact. I sat that night for 4 hours near the scene waiting to hear if my brother was dead or alive. He too had gone elsewhere that night and was safe. That was torture for me. There were many tortured by just a few that night.

So promote non torture for I too think it is wicked and evil but remember the greater good and the innocents who have done nothing wrong. Rely on the fact that you will torture if you have a chance avoiding the deaths.

---

Note to you from first hand experience. Most of these guys are deadly competent. They are well trained and very effective.

I think most SSers in concentration camps were as well, that's not an argument.

You said you were an interrogator yourself, the longer I read your so-called arguments, the more I think it's some kind of self-justification, fabricated to let the bruised concience rest a bit.

If you go the shady way of torturing to get information, you will end up in Abu Ghraib. Take a look at the Stanford experiment or the Milgram experiment, and you know that it is a very slippery slope downwards to sheer tyranny. I will never say that I would have reacted otherwise in any of the experiments as the torturers there, though I hope (but don't really believe) I would. But as this situations have to be avoided by any means, the line to inflicting pain (physically or mentally) must never been crossed.

As you can imagine when you are involved - as I tried to put you in the hypothetical seat of involvement - one thinks and reacts differently because its real and in front of you: fact.

Which is why I posted the quote from A Few Good Men at the beginning. Being a person willing to stand on that wall and and being a person having the freedom, safety, and luxury to beeyotch about those who do so are two entirely different things.

You don't care what they think and get to congratulate yourself for being on what you believe is the side of the angels and historical inevitability. Similarly they don't care what you think, and get to congratulate themselves for actually providing you the freedom to do so.

For that reason, much of this discussion is entirely moot.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Some interrogators don't know the difference and want the informations they expect to get at all costs - then they become torturers.

Duh, welcome to reality. People make mistakes. They go overboard. Some cops do the same thing. Some doctors leave their patients dead on the operating table. There are always risks with human interactions, that doesn't mean that we don't interact.

Still no reason for violence and torture.

Thorin, that wasn't the point, you either missed or evaded it again. Some people will ALWAYS torture others. It happens everywhere. Serial killers. Extremely malicious children. Cops. And yes, even interrogators that go overboard. That will ALWAYS happen because some people will ALWAYS simply do it. But, of course, that wasn't the point. The point was that even though some small number of interrogators will always do that, that isn't sufficient reason to stop all interrogation.

You tell me Thorin, here's the problem that an interrogator faces nearly every single time: They simply don't know. They don't know the answer. They suspect they have the right guy, but they don't know. They think he knows what they need, but they don't know. They think they can get the information in time, but they don't know. So what would you do? How much discomfort will you dish out, knowing full well that no matter how likely you are to be correct, you might not be.

I'm waiting for your answer here.

What about psychological tricks? You don't necessarily need the violence of torture to get quick information. You don't even need to threaten with violence to make them give you the information you need deliberately when you do it right.

I'm still waiting for your answer here. So what would you do? How much discomfort will you dish out, knowing full well that no matter how likely you are to be correct, you might not be.

But once again, you know nothing about which you speak, you have no idea whatsoever, yet you do blather on. OF COURSE you use psych tricks. Get this: Somewhere near 90+ percent of anyone you begin to interrogate sings at the first opportunity. After that you use psych tricks, Mutt and Jeff, Ego Up and Down, et cetera, you use a combination of all those things to break them. Menstrual blood on a Koran. Pork. Religious attacks. Futility. Any of those things. Most are very effective. Even then you can use the threat of waterboarding, whether you actually intend to use it or not. All that stuff is tried first. No one in their right mind just sets up a waterboard and then uses it. That's a waste of time and isn't necessary.

Feel free to believe this all you wish. Normally you do not have weeks to get the information you need. You have minutes and hours and if you are *really* lucky, you have a day or two.

Still no reason to terrorize or torture people. To advocate this sadistic procedure even on suspects is just like advocating fascism.

That this is reason enough for you (about the only time that "because you sez so" is a valid argument (you lucked out)) does not mean it is reason enough for others. They disagree with you. They don't care what you think they are advocating. Knowing that people like you call them "fascists" and hold up a bevy of unrelated signs at anti-war rallies is little more than a source of amusement.

Any human is to be treated as innocent until their guilt is proved. That's the law. And even interrogators have to follow the law.

Heh. That's just more classic naiveté. Just as all speeders do, and all tax evaders do, and all cops do, and all CEOs do. Earth to Thorin: no, they don't, any more than any of these other people do.

That they don't do follow the laws doesn't mean they are't supposed to follow them. Ad AFAIK the laws allow no expectatios, they are valid for everyone within the country where they are valid.

Sure. Just like speeding. Everyone does it. And no one cares. And a few people get tickets. And it STILL goes on because it's a part of every day life that simply cannot be enforced. That people are supposed to follow your precious gov't rules doesn't mean that they do, or that they should.

The gov'ts and organizations that they work for condone interrogation in private while decrying it in public.

That's just hypocrisy, and makes it even worse.

Yeah, you note that, and yet you constantly advocate to give the hypocrites even greater powers over everyone. What a great plan.

You don't just water board everyone for the hell of it.

Well, I wouldn't "water board" no-one in that case.
As the saying goes: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

Yay. Another bromide from Thorin. No argument, just empty sentiment.

Note to you from first hand experience. Most of these guys are deadly competent. They are well trained and very effective.

Oh, and if they had an empty motto referring to you it would be "Who cares what they think?" I mean, it doesn't look good on a shoulder patch, but it has a ring to it.

Full Stop!

I still say these people are incompetent. They may be well-trained and effective. But you can train a monkey, too - even to become "deadly effective". Human Competence is another thing.
You don't speak of "making people tell you what they have done". You talk about "break people and make them admit whatever you want them to admit". To even admit that black is white and white is black. Like what they do in Abu Ghraib and other detention camps like that. And everyone knows that those who are detained there are mostly scapegoats.

Like, "Guilty or not, let's arrest them, they look guilty - after some treatment we will see that they also will be guilty". That's like what they did in the Spanish Inquisition, during witch hunts.

And to call that "going overboard" is a lame excuse.
Did the Nazis "go overboard" when they burned books and began to gather Jews to gas them? Did McCarthy "go overboard" inventing "Un-American behavior" - and using this to hunt lefties instead of the evil ones? Did Bush just "go overboard" to command your military to march into Afghanistan, Iraq (and maybe Iran)? No. They intended to do so.
They deliberately did these things, like the interrogators/inquisitors deliberately cross the line between appropriate questioning and sadistic torturing. Maybe they enjoy having power over the detainees, the possibility to do everything to them what you want to make them admit what you want them to admit, without being punished yourself - Well, incidents do happen...
Are you sadistic, Mr. Interrogator? Have you enjoyed to have that much power over people? Has it aroused you?

---

Account frozen...

Note to you from first hand experience. Most of these guys are deadly competent. They are well trained and very effective.

I think most SSers in concentration camps were as well, that's not an argument.

By itself? No, it isn't. In context, yes it was. Thorin had posted the empty bromide that “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” I posted the comment to show that I had first hand experience to note that the opposite was actually true.

But either way, your response is in error because it isn't hard at all to be effective at shoveling corpses into an oven or at turning on a shower system. Simple physical labor, even by the SS, doesn't have any comparison to understanding and being effective at interrogations.

You said you were an interrogator yourself, the longer I read your so-called arguments, the more I think it's some kind of self-justification, fabricated to let the bruised concience rest a bit.

You feel free and believe whatever you wish about me, Saenger. If that makes you feel better, have at it. Like those we are discussing, I don't care what you feel.

Oh, and if you think they are "so-called arguments" you would do your position a world of wonders if you would try to refute them instead of just repeatedly proclaiming self-serving conclusions.

If you go the shady way of torturing to get information, you will end up in Abu Ghraib. Take a look at the Stanford experiment or the Milgram experiment, and you know that it is a very slippery slope downwards to sheer tyranny.

We studied those examples in detail, to prevent those things from happening. That may be true that you would find that you would slide down that slippery slope, that you couldn't handle the responsibility, or that you were simply incapable of performing professionally, but in that case, you would just quit. That doesn't mean that others can't handle it.

I will never say that I would have reacted otherwise in any of the experiments as the torturers there, though I hope (but don't really believe) I would. But as this situations have to be avoided by any means, the line to inflicting pain (physically or mentally) must never been crossed.

"By you," you mean. You should have added that onto the end. You should have said "But as I have to avoid this situations by any means, I must never cross the line to inflicting pain (physically or mentally)."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

See this post to see everything that Thorin evaded.

Yet again.

Full Stop!

I still say these people are incompetent.

Hmmmm. I say "Skeezy monkey turtle butts." I say, "The sky is green." Yay, me!

That you say it doesn't make it true because you have no experience or evidence to support your comments. The evidence that they are effective is that it goes on everywhere, that it is tolerated if not condoned everywhere, and that other than empty public bromides, nobody even puts minor effort into stopping it.

They may be well-trained and effective. But you can train a monkey, too - even to become "deadly effective". Human Competence is another thing.

Uh huh. OK. Interrogations aren't run by monkeys. Besides the fact that the monkeys don't speak English, there is a lot more to it than that.

You don't speak of "making people tell you what they have done". You talk about "break people and make them admit whatever you want them to admit".

Funny, you put quotes around things that I have not said. You break people to make them realize that it is futile to withhold information that they have that you need.

Making them admit whatever you want them to is a waste of time and will result in your own soldiers continuing to get killed. Why bother?

To even admit that black is white and white is black. Like what they do in Abu Ghraib and other detention camps like that. And everyone knows that those who are detained there are mostly scapegoats.

Your editorializing aside, you have no idea what goes on, or how interrogations are run. You are utterly ignorant about it, yet you carry on as if you do.

Like, "Guilty or not, let's arrest them, they look guilty - after some treatment we will see that they also will be guilty". That's like what they did in the Spanish Inquisition, during witch hunts.

If you think that this is what interrogators do, then you're just dumb. This is what your precious gov't agents, the Stasi, did and that is called torture. As I said above, creating information out of whole cloth is just nuts, it doesn't save any of your own soldiers. It doesn't bring the conflict to an end.

And to call that "going overboard" is a lame excuse.
Did the Nazis "go overboard" when they burned books and began to gather Jews to gas them? Did McCarthy "go overboard" inventing "Un-American behavior" - and using this to hunt lefties instead of the evil ones? Did Bush just "go overboard" to command your military to march into Afghanistan, Iraq (and maybe Iran)? No. They intended to do so.

I'm just letting this stand on its own.

They deliberately did these things, like the interrogators/inquisitors deliberately cross the line between appropriate questioning and sadistic torturing.

I don't know what to tell you here, brainiac. Do you want to discuss human nature? Yes, some people deliberately cross the line. That's called torture. That will always happen, in every context of human interaction.

But overwhelmingly they don't cross this line, mostly because its ineffective and it's wrong. Hurting people just to hurt them doesn't help. They pick up on that very quickly.

Maybe they enjoy having power over the detainees, the possibility to do everything to them what you want to make them admit what you want them to admit, without being punished yourself - Well, incidents do happen...
Are you sadistic, Mr. Interrogator? Have you enjoyed to have that much power over people? Has it aroused you?

Heh heh. Again I'll just let this stand on it's own.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So promote non torture for I too think it is wicked and evil but remember the greater good and the innocents who have done nothing wrong. Rely on the fact that you will torture if you have a chance avoiding the deaths.

I don't want to get in a competition to see who has suffered the most from terrorist outrages, but, before assuming that I would use torture regardless of what I've already said, you might want to look at a couple of previous posts of mine here and here.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Popcorn, i need popcorn.

I love those threads :-)))

---

As an aside, fun with rendition!

From the Beeb:

US court rejects CIA kidnap case

Tuesday, 9 October 2007, 14:33 GMT

The US Supreme Court has thrown out an appeal by a Lebanese-born German citizen who accuses the CIA of kidnapping and torturing him.

Lower courts had rejected the case of Khaled al-Masri on national security grounds, and the Supreme Court in Washington upheld their decision.

Mr Masri says he was abducted in Macedonia in 2003 and flown to Afghanistan for interrogation.

His case has highlighted the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme.


And more from the Washington Post:

Court Rejects Case of Alleged CIA Torture Victim

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; 10:48 AM

The Supreme Court today declined to hear the case of a German citizen who said he was kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured by the CIA.

A federal district court judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had earlier dismissed the case brought by Khaled El-Masri, agreeing with the government that the case could not go forward without exposing state secrets. The Supreme Court denied review without comment.

Masri, who is of Lebanese descent, has said he was detained by Macedonian police on Dec. 31, 2003, and handed over to the CIA a few weeks later. He said he was taken to a secret CIA-run prison in Afghanistan and physically abused before he was flown back to the Balkans without explanation in May 2004 and dumped on a hillside in Albania.

German officials said they were later informed privately by their U.S. counterparts that Masri was detained in a case of mistaken identity, apparently confused with a terrorism suspect of a similar name. U.S. officials have not publicly admitted any guilt or responsibility in the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union had taken up Masri's case. Lawyers for the group said the Bush administration was using the state secrets privilege too broadly, invoking it to stop lawsuits relating to wiretapping and whistle-blowers as well as terrorism cases.

In this case, they argued in asking the court to take the case, "the entire world already knows" the information the government said it is seeking to protect.

But government lawyers said comments from officials are different from the specific details the administration would need to expose in order to litigate the case. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement called it an "extravagant request" that would overturn the precedent set by the court more than 50 years ago in denying a lawsuit brought during the Cold War about a downed war plane.

Last month, German authorities dropped their efforts to extradite 13 CIA agents they claimed were involved in Masri's abduction.

Masri in May was committed to a psychiatric institution after he was arrested in the southern German city of Neu-Ulm on suspicion of arson. His attorney blamed his troubles on the CIA, saying the kidnapping and detention had left Masri a "psychological wreck."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

...Masri in May was committed to a psychiatric institution after he was arrested in the southern German city of Neu-Ulm on suspicion of arson. His attorney blamed his troubles on the CIA, saying the kidnapping and detention had left Masri a "psychological wreck."

Sure - and I can totally understand this. To be not only kidnapped, arrested & intimidated without reason, but also even tortured without reason sure makes people psychologically sick.

---

Account frozen...