CIA Tactics Endorsed in Secret Memos

[Parabellum]

Look....I am staunchly opposed to torture AS A PROTOCOL.

But I understand that under certain VERY exigent circumstances, it might be the right thing to do.

Example: If the US KNEW WITHOUT A DOUBT that terrorists were in posession of a suitcase nuke on US soil and the KNEW WITHOUT A DOUBT that a specific person knew where and when the detonation was supposed to happen...under those specific circumstances, I believe that they would be compelled to extract that information by any means necessary...in order to save millions of lives from a PROVEN and DIRECT threat.

But to say that we support torture as a STANDARD INTERROGATION PROTOCOL is simply barbaric madness.

[gtramontelli]

Originally Posted by Parabellum

Look....I am staunchly opposed to torture AS A PROTOCOL.

But I understand that under certain VERY exigent circumstances, it might be the right thing to do.

Example: If the US KNEW WITHOUT A DOUBT that terrorists were in posession of a suitcase nuke on US soil and the KNEW WITHOUT A DOUBT that a specific person knew where and when the detonation was supposed to happen...under those specific circumstances, I believe that they would be compelled to extract that information by any means necessary...in order to save millions of lives from a PROVEN and DIRECT threat.

But to say that we support torture as a STANDARD INTERROGATION PROTOCOL is simply barbaric madness.

One of the issues with torture is that may arguments FOR it are based on the premise that torturing a prisoner will yield ACCURATE information. In the scenario you named, someone might disclose false locations. In a circumstance where guilt is not proven before the torture happens, people have been known to confess to all sorts of things, provided the confession resulted in an end to the torture.

I'm all for using interrogation that can lead to verifiable information, but I don't think that physical torture has been proven to give that result. Anyone have information about the efficacy of sodium amitrol (i think that's it) in getting information?

[Parabellum]

Originally Posted by gtramontelli

One of the issues with torture is that may arguments FOR it are based on the premise that torturing a prisoner will yield ACCURATE information. In the scenario you named, someone might disclose false locations. In a circumstance where guilt is not proven before the torture happens, people have been known to confess to all sorts of things, provided the confession resulted in an end to the torture.

I'm all for using interrogation that can lead to verifiable information, but I don't think that physical torture has been proven to give that result. Anyone have information about the efficacy of sodium amitrol (i think that's it) in getting information?

I concur, as I stated earlier.

But under THAT scenario....what else could anyone possibly do? If they just decided to lock the guy up and forget about getting reliable info from him, we would be no worse off than if we got bogus info. We have plenty of resources to chase every credible piece of intel in a scenario like that.

I guess my point was that as a policy its madness, but I am willing to acknowledge that there MAY be very specific circumstances where it is the least bad option amongst a set of very bad options.

[jerome_oneil]

The notion that we have to contrive ridiculous scenarios to find some justification for it aught to be enough.

If we knew for certain that a dude had the keys to a boat full of kittens, and one of those kittens was harboring the whereabouts of an atomic nucular scratching post, somewhere in a room full of widows and orphans....

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by gtramontelli

One of the issues with torture is that may arguments FOR it are based on the premise that torturing a prisoner will yield ACCURATE information. In the scenario you named, someone might disclose false locations. In a circumstance where guilt is not proven before the torture happens, people have been known to confess to all sorts of things, provided the confession resulted in an end to the torture.

I'm all for using interrogation that can lead to verifiable information, but I don't think that physical torture has been proven to give that result. Anyone have information about the efficacy of sodium amitrol (i think that's it) in getting information?

Sodium pentothol has also been used in conjunction with the medical community as a form anestesia (piss off we know I cant spell) usually with something else.
Seems to make alot more sense than putting cigs in someones ears and burning them backwards.
here is some about it from Does Truth Serum Really Exist?
In real life, however, the use of the truth serum is highly controversial. While the serum does make a person more likely to tell the truth, it also makes them more likely to get confused. As the person becomes more and more talkative, the lines between fact and fantasy begin to blur. Experts believe that up to 50 percent of what a person says while under the influence of the truth serum is either an embellished version of the truth or a complete invention. The truth serum produces in people an effect similar to alcohol intoxication, lowering inhibitions, and making people chattier and more prone to answering questions.

[gtramontelli]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

It's nice to see you endorsing the terrorist methods. It clearly delineates you.

BTW, fundies are fundies. A fundie's choice of which religion to fundamentalize (I just made up that word!) governs that fundie's wardrobe and target more than his or her ethical standards.

[gtramontelli]

Originally Posted by Parabellum

I concur, as I stated earlier.

But under THAT scenario....what else could anyone possibly do? If they just decided to lock the guy up and forget about getting reliable info from him, we would be no worse off than if we got bogus info. We have plenty of resources to chase every credible piece of intel in a scenario like that.

I guess my point was that as a policy its madness, but I am willing to acknowledge that there MAY be very specific circumstances where it is the least bad option amongst a set of very bad options.

I missed that in your post. My bad!

[Parabellum]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

The notion that we have to contrive ridiculous scenarios to find some justification for it aught to be enough.

If we knew for certain that a dude had the keys to a boat full of kittens, and one of those kittens was harboring the whereabouts of an atomic nucular scratching post, somewhere in a room full of widows and orphans....

I hear what you are saying.

I was only trying to articulate that I am not just BLINDLY against it because of some emotional involvement.

My stance is driven by reason...and that same reasoning acknowledges that there MIGHT be circumstances so extreme that it becomes a prudent, if not reluctantly made choice.

[gtramontelli]

Originally Posted by Parabellum

I hear what you are saying.

I was only trying to articulate that I am not just BLINDLY against it because of some emotional involvement.

My stance is driven by reason...and that same reasoning acknowledges that there MIGHT be circumstances so extreme that it becomes a prudent, if not reluctantly made choice.

Not to derail, but it seems that this sort of emotional reasoning that is often attributed to the democratic party is actually the domain of the republicans. Many conservatives project that sort of reasoning onto the liberals, though they are guilty of it themselves.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by PhilB

+1! Well said.

PhilB

+2

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by Parabellum

I hear what you are saying.

I was only trying to articulate that I am not just BLINDLY against it because of some emotional involvement.

My stance is driven by reason...and that same reasoning acknowledges that there MIGHT be circumstances so extreme that it becomes a prudent, if not reluctantly made choice.

I get that. My opposition to it is based on reasoned thought as well. I just wanted to point out that while there might be a circumstance where it's warranted, that circumstance would be so contrived as to be fictional, for all practical purposes.

When the Martians invade, let me know and I'll panic.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

When the Martians invade, let me know and I'll panic.

It happened yesterday. Pay attention.

[Parabellum]

Lets hope that those horrible scenarios STAY fictional.

[MontereyDave]

Honestly, the public debate about the issue and the need for open source publications (and politicians) to pubicly define in explicit detail everything that an interrogator can or can't do, greatly undermines the effectiveness of our interrogators ... afterall the most effective fear we could potentially use in the course of an interrogation is the fear of the unknown (fear of what will happen next, fear of what the interrogator will do next, etc). But, now they know the our limits (probably more so than any adversary in history).

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by MontereyDave

Honestly, the public debate about the issue and the need for open source publications (and politicians) to pubicly define in explicit detail everything that an interrogator can or can't do, greatly undermines the effectiveness of our interrogators ... afterall the most effective fear we could potentially use in the course of an interrogation is the fear of the unknown (fear of what will happen next, fear of what the interrogator will do next, etc). But, now they know the our limits (probably more so than any adversary in history).

YES. This is the negative of this discussion. Terrorists should NOT have the assurance they will not be tortured.