4 ms·

I wouldn't say that any of these techniques are "basic/standard", and I used to work in the field. You can get plenty of information out of someone without lay

I wouldn't say that any of these techniques are "basic/standard", and I used to work in the field. You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them. In my opinion the question is the extent to which it's OK to play with people's psychology through isolation and misinformation, while still giving them 3 hots and a cot. The important thing to note here is that you can still damage people this way if you take it too far; solitary makes people go crazy especially when they're being fed false info about what's going on outside the walls. Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. We're not going to beat it out of them, but how far are we willing to go? Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion.

charonn0 12y ago
> Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. According to the report, "Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
mikeash 12y ago
"Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads." Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Honest question. I see comment after comment after comment in this thread that indicates the commenters are unbelievably frightened of terrorism, to the extent that they're willing to sanction anything, even acts that they admit are otherwise reprehensible, to prevent it. Why are apparently intelligent people so frightened of it?
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  I'm just not seeing a lot of comments in this thread saying that the commenters sanction anything to prevent terrorism. The condemnation of torture seems to be far more widespread here.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    The "anti" side is far more prevalent, but the "pro" side is significantly more present than the "not at all" I'd expect/hope for.
- leroy_masochist 12y ago
  > Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Great question, and one we should always keep in mind. The death toll from terrorism on US soil since 9/11 is indeed very low. That said, the people plotting against us are intelligent and adaptive and wish to do us harm. If they succeed, they might destroy the free society which we've built for ourselves. Put another way, I'm scared of the physical consequences of a nuclear weapon going off in midtown Manhattan and even more scared of what would happen to our society in the wake of it. You think we'd be having these conversations about which techniques may or may not be torture if there were half a million dead in NYC and the entire tri-state region were irradiated?
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Remember the Cold War, when the threat wasn't that someone might figure out a way to smuggle a small weapon into NYC, but that we'd have fifteen minutes' warning before NYC was subject to multiple megaton-class detonations, along with every other major city in the country? There isn't even any evidence that the threat of nuclear terrorism is credible. Nukes aren't something you pick up at the local Safeway on your way home from the daily jihad. Compare to 30 years ago, where the threat was absolutely, 100% credible. Literally hundreds of missiles ready to go at a moment's notice. One bad decision or bad hangover away from a billion deaths. And yet, we weren't having debates like this then. That's not to say that the US was all innocent and pure. But at the very least, torture was secretive, hidden, not defended in public as being a worthwhile and justifiable act. And then combine all that with the simple fact that torture doesn't even work. All it does is make their friends angry. Do you really think that torturing suspected terrorists reduces the chances of a future terrorist nuclear detonation in Manhattan? I don't see how. Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to point out that those hundreds of missiles and hundreds of nuclear warheads are still there and still ready to go at a moment's notice and we are still one person's bad decision or bad hangover away from total annihilation. We just manage to pretend it's not there.
foobarqux 12y ago
> You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them Can you give examples? Do they work against hardened interogees? Do they involve threats of violence?
trhway 12y ago
>Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. > This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion. there is no conversation to have. Only charges (of crimes against humanity which torture is) to bring in.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this. OTOH, torture is subject to a universal prohibition under international law independently of the status of the tortured person, whether a protected person under the any of the Geneva Conventions, a regular criminal suspect in a domestic court system, or any other status that may or may not exist.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. >None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this. One way or the other it is mentioned in various places through the Conventions. In particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention : for internal conflict " The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. " for international: "It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

charonn0 12y ago

> Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. According to the report, "Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.

mikeash 12y ago

"Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads." Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Honest question. I see comment after comment after comment in this thread that indicates the commenters are unbelievably frightened of terrorism, to the extent that they're willing to sanction anything, even acts that they admit are otherwise reprehensible, to prevent it. Why are apparently intelligent people so frightened of it?

waterlesscloud 12y ago
I'm just not seeing a lot of comments in this thread saying that the commenters sanction anything to prevent terrorism. The condemnation of torture seems to be far more widespread here.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The "anti" side is far more prevalent, but the "pro" side is significantly more present than the "not at all" I'd expect/hope for.
leroy_masochist 12y ago
> Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Great question, and one we should always keep in mind. The death toll from terrorism on US soil since 9/11 is indeed very low. That said, the people plotting against us are intelligent and adaptive and wish to do us harm. If they succeed, they might destroy the free society which we've built for ourselves. Put another way, I'm scared of the physical consequences of a nuclear weapon going off in midtown Manhattan and even more scared of what would happen to our society in the wake of it. You think we'd be having these conversations about which techniques may or may not be torture if there were half a million dead in NYC and the entire tri-state region were irradiated?
- mikeash 12y ago
  Remember the Cold War, when the threat wasn't that someone might figure out a way to smuggle a small weapon into NYC, but that we'd have fifteen minutes' warning before NYC was subject to multiple megaton-class detonations, along with every other major city in the country? There isn't even any evidence that the threat of nuclear terrorism is credible. Nukes aren't something you pick up at the local Safeway on your way home from the daily jihad. Compare to 30 years ago, where the threat was absolutely, 100% credible. Literally hundreds of missiles ready to go at a moment's notice. One bad decision or bad hangover away from a billion deaths. And yet, we weren't having debates like this then. That's not to say that the US was all innocent and pure. But at the very least, torture was secretive, hidden, not defended in public as being a worthwhile and justifiable act. And then combine all that with the simple fact that torture doesn't even work. All it does is make their friends angry. Do you really think that torturing suspected terrorists reduces the chances of a future terrorist nuclear detonation in Manhattan? I don't see how. Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to point out that those hundreds of missiles and hundreds of nuclear warheads are still there and still ready to go at a moment's notice and we are still one person's bad decision or bad hangover away from total annihilation. We just manage to pretend it's not there.

foobarqux 12y ago

> You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them Can you give examples? Do they work against hardened interogees? Do they involve threats of violence?

trhway 12y ago

>Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. > This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion. there is no conversation to have. Only charges (of crimes against humanity which torture is) to bring in.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this. OTOH, torture is subject to a universal prohibition under international law independently of the status of the tortured person, whether a protected person under the any of the Geneva Conventions, a regular criminal suspect in a domestic court system, or any other status that may or may not exist.
- trhway 12y ago
  >> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. >None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this. One way or the other it is mentioned in various places through the Conventions. In particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention : for internal conflict " The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. " for international: "It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."