Article

2005-01-12 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-12 8:51:01 AM|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 There is considerable disinformation being bandied about on this subject. First of all, "torture" is the infliction of physical pain: beatings, heat & cold, electrical shock, etc. It is done for the sadistic enjoyment of the torturer, as it is poor for getting cooperation. However, there are an enormous number of other techniques that are far more effective. Still grotesque, they are not "torturous". For example, pharmacopia: heroin, truth serum, endorphine blockers, psychoactives, etc. Psychological "torture" that inflicts no physical wounds. Surgical modification and implants, from transmitters to high explosives. Drug-induced hypnotic suggestion. Many of these are horrific, but they are hidden from the public. Instead, a straw man is set up. "See, we don't use thumb screws, therefore, we don't torture." Also, Gitmo and Abu Gharaib serves as Potemkin villages of terrorist incarceration, a focal point for those opposed to US efforts; whereas the real activity happens in perhaps a hundred different locations around the world.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-12 9:23:58 AM|| 2005-01-12 9:23:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 blah, blah, blah. Nothing in here we didn't know already - that torture will get a suspect to say anything and we have better and more humane methods to do the same.

The article is interesting in that it shows how liberals will believe anything in print, no matter how counterintuitive as long as it disproves a BGO. It's part of their inability to grow up and stop raging against the machine. That article, the other day, that said you should just leave the decomposing bodies, was a classic example of the kind of tripe that liberals love to suck up. It goes against conventional wisdowm, and it's in print, so it must be true. Whoda thunk it! Wow! It must be true.

Mike apparently is such a brilliant genius that, if a gang broke into his house and stole his wife and daughter took them to an unknown location to gang-rape them, he would be 100% confident that these low stress methods of interrogation would work just fine, were the police to capture some members who knew where the evil deed was occurring.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 9:37:25 AM|| 2005-01-12 9:37:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 MS and the WaPo? I'm convinced.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 9:44:07 AM|| 2005-01-12 9:44:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Theyâll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

isn't that the point of torture?

Posted by anon 2005-01-12 9:45:39 AM|| 2005-01-12 9:45:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Article: Worse, youâll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity."

You mean they might actually douse Americans with gasoline, burn them alive and mutilate their corpses? Or cut the throats of civilian stewardesses on their way to killing thousands of non-combatant civilians? Wait a minute - don't they already do that?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-12 10:10:08 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-12 10:10:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think your on to something 'moose. I believe half the problem is defining what "torture" is and isn't. Techniques that you and I would whole-heartedly condone would prolly be considered torture by the average "sensitive" liberal. AFAIC you can chop their hands off, or threaten to kaiser sozei their entire family if it gets them to talk.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-12 10:11:21 AM|| 2005-01-12 10:11:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die."

-wait, what's the statute of limitations? I want an investigation into this. How come you didn't provide proper medical care for that wounded prisoner colonel?? And you let that poor vietnamese father of the year witness that!? He may be emotionally scarred for life! I'm appalled.

/sarcasm off

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-12 10:17:49 AM|| 2005-01-12 10:17:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 'moose says, "It is done for the sadistic enjoyment of the torturer"

If we are going to ever allow REAL torture for the purpose of gaining important information, we should not allow sadists to conduct it. Sadists have the goal of their own pleasure. The goal should be to obtain information. It's a conflict of interest and counter-productive to allow sadists to do the job. Once it is determined that the investigator enjoys it, he should be fired. If you put people who are adverse to torture on the job, they use the least torturous methods that work. Allowing sadists to do it is like allowing sadists to conduct research on animals - it's not the cure for cancer that they are interested in finding.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 10:28:59 AM|| 2005-01-12 10:28:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Mike has apparently been ignoring the more reputable (and better researched) stories saying that absolutely no torture has been used by US forces. Go read City Journal, Mikey, and learn some facts.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-12 11:02:30 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-12 11:02:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 There are two things at play, here. The first is the ability of American leaders to scheme in more than a linear manner. That is, most people are only able to conceive of events as being like a TV show, in which someone runs into the President's office and says, "Mr Clinton, we have a problem" (that he has never heard of before), and then he has 50 minutes to solve the problem one way or another before the next problem. Then the problem is forever solved. They think that events are just a push-pull linear affair, settled as much by emotional charisma as by actions. Then there are the more complex thinkers who imagine complex "linkages" (Bush 1 expression) between events. And these folks can figure out scenarios like "If we want to fight Iraq, while insulating the world oil markets, but the French betray us, then how can we attack Iraq, prevent oil from skyrocketing, and stick it to the French for their treachery?" And linkages can get pretty complicated, if you consider the thousands of mutual agreements and activities going on at any given time between the US, France, oil, Iraq, and the rest of the world.
Last but not least, Bush 2 has been blessed with individuals as advisers who can take linkages to their 3rd dimension: historically and philosophically. This integrates linear actions with their linkages, and the history of these linkages, *and* the projection into the future of linkages. Plans that might consider events 200 years in the past, and project 200 years into the future. Add to that the philosophies of democratic revolution, CATO Institute economics, Neo-Conservatism and technological breakthrough, and you have individuals who can play several games of 3-D chess in their head at the same time. Perhaps the most intellectually formidable cabinet ever assembled.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-12 11:06:12 AM|| 2005-01-12 11:06:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 The *other* point was that "How many science fiction movies have you seen?" America has access to astounding, and sometimes horrific technologies that make "thumbscrew torture" as archaic as it sounds. Psychotropic drugs, endorphine blockers, surgery, etc. There are no practical limits. If they don't know anything, what is to stop us from implanting a transmitter in them, then letting them go? What about implanting a C-5 explosive charge the size of a marshmallow in them that can level an apartment building? Turning them into drug-induced-hypnosis assassins? A chip that will make them think God is talking to them? Chemical tags secreted by their sweat so that anything or anyone they touch is marked? Genetic modification? What of this is "tortuous?"

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-12 11:16:09 AM|| 2005-01-12 11:16:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Good posts 'moose. I like the non-linear vs. linear concept - well said. Wheels within wheels, what effects one part of the spider's web ripples other parts as well. As for the techno advances and using them on terrorists, I'm all for anything that has good chance of producing results.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-12 11:29:45 AM|| 2005-01-12 11:29:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 If the author is suggesting that torture doesn't work...well...fine, so be it. In that case I have to question why bother to take prisoners alive?

Posted by Mark Z. 2005-01-12 11:38:26 AM|| 2005-01-12 11:38:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 2b: If we are going to ever allow REAL torture for the purpose of gaining important information, we should not allow sadists to conduct it. Sadists have the goal of their own pleasure. The goal should be to obtain information. It's a conflict of interest and counter-productive to allow sadists to do the job. Once it is determined that the investigator enjoys it, he should be fired. If you put people who are adverse to torture on the job, they use the least torturous methods that work. Allowing sadists to do it is like allowing sadists to conduct research on animals - it's not the cure for cancer that they are interested in finding.

People need to enjoy their jobs. If you send in people who are horrified by torture, you end up with head cases who go insane and become less and less effective as the war goes on. The correct way to implement torture as an investigative tool is to require specific authorization before it is employed. We don't authorize our investigators to summarily execute people on their say-so, or conduct bombing missions without specific authorization and we shouldn't do that either for torture. Torture sessions should be filmed in order to avoid abuses. Ultimately, however, the investigators who are authorized to employ torture - on a case-by-case basis - need to be people who won't go nuts because of the methods used. And this means that we need to employ people who enjoy the work, just as we employ soldiers who enjoy combat, but will use their skills only when authorized to do so.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-12 11:43:17 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-12 11:43:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Torture: "It was just a flesh wound." Monty Python

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 11:54:19 AM|| 2005-01-12 11:54:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Sadist or not, it doesn't matter - the key is measuring output. If a sadist gets more weapons caches confiscated and terrorists arrested, then he is the person to put in charge of extracting information from captured terrorists. Someone with a high rate of torture and a low rate of success needs to be reassigned. Again, it's all about measurements. Anyone who engages in unlawful torture, i.e. torture without authorization should be prosecuted in the same way as anyone who engages in unlawful killing.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-12 11:56:28 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-12 11:56:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 True ZF, it boils down to efficiency & professionalism as in any field of work. Usually the shit birds in any organization can be quickly identified and removed. Such is life. Follow the sop's, produce results.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-12 12:02:23 PM|| 2005-01-12 12:02:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Before ruling that torure is counter productive, let's first try the real thing, cross reference the intel, and compare the results (speed and quality) with current methods of asking the terrorists nicely. Do not ever forget these "people" would not hesitate to genocide us in a minute if they could.

I have no need to respect the sensitivities of those who commit mass murder as shortcut to despotic power or a moon god ruled paradise with them as the interpreters of allah's desires. I also have no respect for those who would execute captured reserve Specialist Keith Malpin (Iraq) or Colonel Higgins (Lebanon). How many of you saw the body of Col. Higgins hanging from a rope after more than a year of torture by Hezbollah and the Iranian secret services?
http://operationhiggins.org/
On February 17, 1988, a month and a half after taking command of UN Observer Group Lebanon, LtCol Rich Higgins was captured by Hezbollah terrorists.

At some unknown later date, he was murdered by his captors. During his time in captivity he was interrogated and tortured, and at one point, his captors announced to the world that they intended to try Colonel Higgins for war crimes since he had served in Vietnam.

A year and a half after he was taken, his inert body was seen on television screens around the world, hanging by the neck. It was to be more than two years later -- December 1991 - that his remains were dumped on a Beirut street, to be buried with full honors in the National Veterans' Cemetery at Quantico, Virginia.

Posted by ed 2005-01-12 12:12:21 PM|| 2005-01-12 12:12:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Outsource!

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 12:16:25 PM|| 2005-01-12 12:16:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Agreed Ed. What the msm or the world thinks matters little to me as well. What is the most effective means of saving American lives is my only concern. If we have to exploit a level of barbarism, horror, or trickery wrt interrogations no one has seen before in order to save Americans then I would do it without losing any sleep in an instant.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-12 12:16:27 PM|| 2005-01-12 12:16:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 There is this straw man that the media are putting out - that torture is going to become the tool with which our boys lead when they deal with terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone will still be accountable for the unauthorized use of torture. Commanders who authorize torture frequently will need to show that their results are commensurate with the frequency of these authorizations.

Here's the reality - the fact that torture is permitted will help our people get results faster. They can play the good-cop, bad-cop game at a whole new level of intensity, because the terrorists now know that we can go all the way. The issue isn't confessions - we're not interested in having them fess up about their activities for a conviction before a judge. What we need to know is who their terrorist friends are and where they're located, information that rapidly becomes stale as soon as it spreads around that the subject being questioned has been captured.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-12 12:28:03 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-12 12:28:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity."

One of the problems with this premise is the seeming assumption that the enemy is already acting within generally accepted norms with regard to interrogation. They aren't.

The other problem is the manner in which we are painted into a corner where we lose, regardless of the circumstances. If we engage in torture it endangers our personnel because it encourages reciprocity, but the enemy has no such reservations, and would likely torture captured U.S. personnel anyway. And if a captured U.S. soldier were indeed tortured, we were to even think of returning the favor, there'd likely be a groundswell of suggestions and admonishments of "not stooping to their level", "makes us as bad as the terrorists", blah, blah, blah, and any terrorists we subsequently manage to capture would be spared any harsh methods of interrogation.

All this wailing about the use of torture and what might constitute torture, to me, is all wasted emotion. The enemy knows we can exercise restraint (they call it weakness), but they should also know that we should be willing to forego our self-imposed limits if forced to.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-12 1:01:23 PM|| 2005-01-12 1:01:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 OK people

The French Army didn't lose the Algerian war. It didn't because at one point its paratroopers, ie the people who had been captured at Dien Bien Phu, gained the upper hand over the "old army" (BTW, hundreds of those paras had volunteered for jumping into the Dien Bien Phu well after it became obvious that the surrounded stronghold was a deathtrap). Those guys were determined to use the methoids they had learned of their VietMinh opponents. For instance by denying to the ennemy Algerian's hearts and minds. By development actions or by educatig and freeing women. But they also found a situation where Algeraisn were more in fear of the FLN (who tortureed and butchered farms and villages) than of the French Army. As an example, FLN had ordered a shopper's strike and made clear what would happen at those disobeying the order. Captain Argoud reacted by having a light tank firing a round into a shop's iron curtain and after that everyone reopened in the town. That, agressive hunting of the guerillas (instead of remaining in static strong points like the old army did), insuflating "para spirit" into regular units when para officers were transferred (see what Bigeard did with one particularly mediocre draftee regiment) and getting info from captured FLN people. By 1958 the conventional guerilla was put on the ropes and urban terrorism nearly eliminated.

But in 1958 De Gaulle returned to power and he was determined to release Algeria. Reasons were:

1) France was paying a high political price as the last remaining colonial villain

2) Given the birth-rate of Algerians he foresaw a demographic colonization of France unless Algeria was let go: he told "Colombey of the two Churches will become Colombey of the two mosques" (Colombey les Deux Eglises was his house's place). De Gaulle didn't foresaw his successors would be foolish enough to let millions North-Africans to come to France and let them bring their families.

3) Dozens of former colonies (but with puppet governements) would give France more international weight, specially at the UN

4) He thought that Algeria was a dead weight: not only it gave bad habits to French companies who made profits from captive market instead of increasing competitivity but he thought that French enginees and money should go to design planes, satellites and computers instead of building roads and irrigation canals in Algeria.

That is why De Gaulle negotiated with the FLN despite this having beeen virtually wiped out.

Posted by JFM 2005-01-12 3:53:37 PM|| 2005-01-12 3:53:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 One nice story of the Algerian War is how a French officer (one who had been trained as a commando by the British during WWII) managed for a batch of hand grenades falling into the hands of the FLN. Except he had ensured they would detonate prematurely. :-)

Posted by JFM 2005-01-12 4:07:08 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:07:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 JFM: Given the birth-rate of Algerians he foresaw a demographic colonization of France unless Algeria was let go: he told "Colombey of the two Churches will become Colombey of the two mosques" (Colombey les Deux Eglises was his house's place). De Gaulle didn't foresaw his successors would be foolish enough to let millions North-Africans to come to France and let them bring their families.

This is why democracy and imperialism are incompatible, especially when the conquered outnumber the conquerors. In the final analysis, this is why Churchill had to let the Jewel of the Crown (i.e. India) go.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-12 4:16:41 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-12 4:16:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Anne Applebaum is usually a good and insightful writer in her area of expertise (eastern Europe), but her claim that there's "overwhelmingly negative evidence" is suspect.

She betrays her hand when she says "the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works." Far more typical is her mindset, which believes just the opposite: that torture never works, which is to say that democracies need not make hard, difficult judgment calls when dealing with savagely anti-democratic murderers.

I'll wait to see better and more detailed evidence than hers before I make up my mind on this one.

JFM, anyone else-- any links to studies or accounts of the effectiveness of torture, in Algeria or elsewhere, would be appreciated.

Posted by lex 2005-01-12 5:18:34 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:18:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 It's a major DUH! that torture works. As they say...it makes them say anything. If they know something, it works. That it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff is all part of technique.

The bigger question is how often should we use it and are there other ways to get really good information that fit with our ethos.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 5:34:03 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:34:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 It's just so liberal...the idea that you can wish that torture doesn't really work and it makes it so.

I'm torn on the use of torture, but pretending it doesn't work serves absolutely no purpose in the discussion.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 5:35:14 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:35:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 2b> If you are to argue that torture *does* work, then please supply the facts that verify it. Saying that "it's a major Duh! that torture works" isn't an argument.

And then I'd also please need datapoints on whether torture makes informers more or less likely to report suspects. The question isn't *only* what info the torture itself provides, the question is also what the fact of torture's existence does to your alternate sources of information.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 5:59:28 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 5:59:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 OK, Aris, bring forth your own studies that show it does not work.

Posted by lex 2005-01-12 6:03:14 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:03:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I never argued that torture doesn't work.

I'm not certain whether it does or doesn't.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 6:04:26 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 6:04:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 2b, I agree with you. "Torture doesn't work" is one of the leftist narratives constantly being spewed until it is accepted as fact by many. Other examples include "the (1991) recession is the worst since the Great Depression" and "Republicans want to cut Medicare." My personal favorite is "nuclear power is inefficient and cost-ineffective." Tell that one to the French, Belgians, and Japanese. Amory Lovins, in a famous Foreign Affairs article, first started that narrative in 1976. Others ran with it until it became the conventional wisdom. Of course when you make it too expensive to open a nuke though lawsuits, legislation, and protest, then it is cost ineffective. Lovins was so effective, that his approach became the standard.

I had to laugh when Carville openly admitted that the Bush team had a "better narrative." Of course they didn't, but it shows that the Dems are firmly wedded to post modern thinking.

I am amazed at how efficient the left narrative creation effort is. The grandhigh poobahs craft the narrative and legions of pundits, professors and activists jump on the bandwagon and spread it. Within days, trolls are here spreading it. And the foot soldiers are absolutely tenacious. I saw the effects of their tactics in 80's and 90's while on active and reserve duty. They just kept turning the screws. You can't use that range because of the California gray squirrel/desert tortoise/fill in the blank. You can't dig a fighting position without an environmental impact statement (I'm not kidding). You have to put drip pans under all the tracks 'cause otherwise the rain will wash the oily residue in to the surrounding soil. Of course, the environmental angle was just a smoke screen to cover up an even deeper pacifist agenda. I'm glad for the blogs. I'm glad we're finally fighting back.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-01-12 6:05:44 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:05:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 11A5S - great post!

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 6:09:43 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:09:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Once again sorely lacking on facts, however -- no actual facts in support of the position that torture works, just mockery of the belief that it doesn't.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 6:14:50 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 6:14:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 If so called brainwashing as was practiced by the Chinese Communist on US POWs during the Korean Conflict can be considered torture, then there is a fairly extensive literature on the effects of brainwashing. The literature profiled who was susceptible to BW. These studies on BW helped the military outline acceptable conduct for POWs when subjected to torture.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 6:15:49 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:15:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Thanks 2b.

Aris: I would read the Gulag Archipelago for starters. Solzhenitzyn found that by talking to other Zeks that Soviet techniques caused over 90 percent of prisoners to break. He concluded that those that wouldn't break were in fact usually psychotic.

I would also investigate the Phoenix Program. After the war, the VC cadres estimated that it was responsible for eliminating 95% of infrastructure in some provinces.

There is no doubt in my mind that extended periods of sleeplessness, cold and hunger will cause most people to eventually break. While in Ranger School, I witnessed at least three major breaks with reality under those conditions.

After the break, it is really up to the interrogator. Those guys aren't talking, but if you want an example of where interrogators did use sleep deprivation to successfully extract information, read this City Journal article.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-01-12 6:26:41 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:26:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 So you capture an Islamofacist terrorist jihadist. You know that he acquired a suitcase nuke (probably from the Russians or a former satellite) and planted it somewhere in NY City. You also know that you have a limited amount of time before it detonates. The question is: "What do you do?"

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 6:36:12 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:36:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Still way off climo data but.... pulling that litter Red 'n White Mirro Lure about 1 foot below the surface, with a little snap in it.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-12 6:38:49 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:38:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Thanks for the City Journal article 11A58. Good read.

Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of tortureâa sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.

The jihadist boneheads were brainwashed in the mosques. Their faith sustains their resistance. The Korean War studies on brainwashing showed the same thing. POWs who had a strong faith base were also the most resistant to brainwashing and torture.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 6:52:56 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:52:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 11A5S> "Soviet techniques caused over 90 percent of prisoners to break"

I'd like the meaning of "break" here. Break may mean "causing innocents to make false testimonies as the interrogators wish" or it may mean "causing guilty people, especially militants, to provide valuable info on their accomplices".

I have no doubts on the efficiency of the former, it's the latter that's on doubt.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 7:16:24 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 7:16:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 I have no doubts on the efficiency of the former, it's the latter that's on doubt.

That's why you're on jv.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 7:24:45 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:24:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 JQC: Good point about the brainwashing in the mosques. I hadn't thought about that at all when I read the City Journal article.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-01-12 7:25:55 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:25:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 For evidence that torture works all you have to do is watch the show "24", Jack Bauer knows.

Posted by jn1 2005-01-12 7:43:37 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:43:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I see a large number of PhD dissertation projects here! The Psychology, Medical/Psychiatry, Philosophy and PoliSci departments at minimum should be fighting over this like Ruggers ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-12 7:49:18 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:49:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 I'm reminded of Group Captain Mandrake's discussion of torture with General Ripper. Ripper asked if he talked, and Mandrake replied that of course he talked. Everybody talked. He didn't think the Japs were interested in what he had to say though. "They were just having a bit of fun."

It most likely does work. It should however be the job of pros, not just guys having a bit of fun.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-01-12 8:14:47 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:14:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Break may mean "causing innocents to make false testimonies as the interrogators wish" or it may mean "causing guilty people, especially militants, to provide valuable info on their accomplices".

Which is why the information given is checked out. If it's bunk, then the "pressure" would be ratcheted up another notch or two, or a different method employed. No one would be dumb enough to automatically assume that information provided under any level of interrogation is absolutely golden, since the possibility is very real that the subject may give false information simply to take the heat off himself.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-12 9:49:40 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:49:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 that's why God gave us ten fingers and toes...and 2 ears and eyes...redundancy for torture statement verification :-)

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 10:02:02 PM|| 2005-01-12 10:02:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#48
Re #2 (2b) if a gang broke into his house and stole his wife and daughter took them to an unknown location to gang-rape them, he would be 100% confident that these low stress methods of interrogation would work just fine, were the police to capture some members who knew where the evil deed was occurring.

That's quite a scenario, 2b.
.

Posted by Glerens Thimble7229 2005-01-12 11:33:17 PM|| 2005-01-12 11:33:17 PM|| Front Page Top

00:08 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:00 2b
23:56 2b
23:55 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:33 Glerens Thimble7229
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:28 Barbara Skolaut
23:19 Zenster
23:17 Rafael
23:15 Atomic Conspiracy
23:14 Rafael
23:07 Phil Fraering
23:01 Zenster
22:51 John Q. Citizen
22:47 Atomic Conspiracy
22:44 Frank G
22:35 Zhang Fei
22:34 Bomb-a-rama
22:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:31 smokeysinse
22:29 Bomb-a-rama
22:24 Frank G
22:21 eLarson