Torture

"Travis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

There is some debate about the effectiveness of drugs. My point is that

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

should do whatever it takes with zero regard to prisoners 'rights'.

Torture can be pretty unreliable itself. Torture someone cruelly
enough and they'll confess to anything just to get you to stop. There
is no guarantee that the information given under torture will be
accurate.

And of course there is the truly horrific possibility that a person who
is completely innocent would be tortured.

The only thing to me that would be truly horrific is when/if these people
are successful in their avowed pursuit of mass destruction of life i.e.
using a wmd and causing death in terms of hundreds of thousands

You'd want to have virtual

Quoted message said:

certainty that the torture subject would actually have the information
you need before you go reaching for the hammer and pliers.

Travis

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

my point is that we we seem to be guided by human rights issues in
Guantanamo etc and I think the only consideration should be what are the
most effective techniqes to extract info

My point is that you've yet to demonstrate any conflict between honoring
human rights and extracing information.

The "screw human rights" attitude produces a lot of random abberant

behaviour

Quoted message said:

from some of the troops, which costs a lot in terms of credibility (for
example, consider what happens next time the US ask China or Saudi Arabia

or

Quoted message said:

Iran to clean up their act on human rights.) *and* gives little in terms

of

Quoted message said:

information.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

We are not talking about normal times - or a drug bust etc - we are talking
about our very survival in a time when we have an enemy with the means and
motivation to destroy us. It is generally acknowledged that they either have
wmd or will have imminently. I could not give a rats ass about their human
rights in this context.

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

Quoted message said:

There is some debate about the effectiveness of drugs. My point is that

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

should do whatever it takes with zero regard to prisoners 'rights'.

Again, this statement does not even make any sense unless you demonstrate

that

Quoted message said:

regard for prisoners rights makes it harder to extract useful information.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

I'm saying in this context of our very survival we we need to free ourselves
of any constraint in the pursuit of information/intelligence to combat this
threat. Intelligence is virtually our only weapon

"Sgt. Fragger" <rrlll@555> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David schrieb:

Quoted message said:

I firmly believe that western governments need to do whatever it takes

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

extract information from terrorists/bombers that they are holding. There

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be no rights for people who are intent on destroying our civilization.
Selective torture techniques must be on the menu for these barbarians or

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are shirking our duty to protect our way of life. Really, if we knew

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

torture applied to one individual could have prevented 9/11 with 3000

lives

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lost and 1000 billion dollars down the drain can there be any argument??

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

next strike could mean 1 million lives lost.

agreed. We only need to throw them in a river with a big weight around
their neck. If they drown, this means that they were innocent and are
now with the lord. If however they manage to come back to the surface,
this must mean that the devil helped them somehow and they should now be
burned at the stakes. Either way everybody wins really.

Couldn;t care less so long as before they go to a better place they tell us
what we need to know

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-07-30, David <forgotwhy@yahoSNIP

Quoted message said:

SNIP My point is that we should do
whatever it takes with zero regard
to prisoners 'rights'.

*By any means necessary* is just a damn catchy phrase!

Quoted message said:

Again, this statement does not even
make any sense unless you demonstrate
that regard for prisoners rights makes
it harder to extract useful information.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? We have two points of view here:
Prisoners rights versus an electric baton and a bigass bucket of water.

If you catch someone red-handed then, yeah, be the nice official and
ask politely, "Excuse me, Mr. Aswat, but we have a few questions about
some calls made from your cell phone to some of the suspected suicide
bombers. Yes, perhaps you could enlighten us, please."

Then if he plays stupid: "I never made any phone calls. I don't know
those men." Well, it's time to play hardball.

There was a stink in another newsgroup I frequent about Jeffrey Dahmer.
It was my idea that any officer who found human bodyparts in a
refrigerator should've waived Miranda rights and gone for the head
shot. "You have the right to remain, awww, EFF THIS! THERE'S HALF A
HUMAN HEAD IN HIS FREEZER!!!" *BLAAMMM!* "Uh, yes, officer requests
assistance. Suspect was resisting arrest, uh huh. That's right. Send
the coroner, thanks."

Those opposed to this line of thought suggested that Dahmer was worth
more alive as he could then help to resolve other unsolved deaths or
missing persons cases. Also, I believe someone stated that while alive
he could be used to get a close-up view of the mind of a cannibal
serial killer. Oh, how helpful. BAH!

No one wants to hurt an innocent person. Well, other than Jeffrey
Dahmer, et al., but you know what I mean. Still, perhaps it would be
wise to answer the question Donovan Rebbechi poses: Can we demonstrate
that regard for prisoners rights makes it harder to extract useful
information? And the logical follow-up: If so, what measures would
prove more successful?

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

David said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

Quoted message said:

There is some debate about the effectiveness of drugs. My point is that

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

should do whatever it takes with zero regard to prisoners 'rights'.

Again, this statement does not even make any sense unless you demonstrate
that regard for prisoners rights makes it harder to extract useful
information.

Your ability to repeat yourself while not addressing the point at hand is very
impressive.

Quoted message said:

I'm saying in this context of our very survival we we need to free ourselves
of any constraint

But you haven't demonstrated that human rights are a constraint on
intelligence gathering. So why are you bringing up human rights ? Why
not bring up, say, "constraints" on pot smoking instead ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Curt James" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-07-30, David <forgotwhy@yahoSNIP

Quoted message said:

SNIP My point is that we should do
whatever it takes with zero regard
to prisoners 'rights'.

*By any means necessary* is just a damn catchy phrase!

Quoted message said:

Again, this statement does not even
make any sense unless you demonstrate
that regard for prisoners rights makes
it harder to extract useful information.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? We have two points of view here:
Prisoners rights versus an electric baton and a bigass bucket of water.

If you catch someone red-handed then, yeah, be the nice official and
ask politely, "Excuse me, Mr. Aswat, but we have a few questions about
some calls made from your cell phone to some of the suspected suicide
bombers. Yes, perhaps you could enlighten us, please."

Then if he plays stupid: "I never made any phone calls. I don't know
those men." Well, it's time to play hardball.

There was a stink in another newsgroup I frequent about Jeffrey Dahmer.
It was my idea that any officer who found human bodyparts in a
refrigerator should've waived Miranda rights and gone for the head
shot. "You have the right to remain, awww, EFF THIS! THERE'S HALF A
HUMAN HEAD IN HIS FREEZER!!!" *BLAAMMM!* "Uh, yes, officer requests
assistance. Suspect was resisting arrest, uh huh. That's right. Send
the coroner, thanks."

Those opposed to this line of thought suggested that Dahmer was worth
more alive as he could then help to resolve other unsolved deaths or
missing persons cases. Also, I believe someone stated that while alive
he could be used to get a close-up view of the mind of a cannibal
serial killer. Oh, how helpful. BAH!

No one wants to hurt an innocent person. Well, other than Jeffrey
Dahmer, et al., but you know what I mean. Still, perhaps it would be
wise to answer the question Donovan Rebbechi poses: Can we demonstrate
that regard for prisoners rights makes it harder to extract useful
information? And the logical follow-up: If so, what measures would
prove more successful?

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

My issue is not about 'what measures would prove more successful' - it is
that if there are measures that will be more effective but they trample on
human rights, that we should not be constrained

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-07-30, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
>

> There is some debate about the effectiveness of drugs. My point is

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we

Quoted message said:

> should do whatever it takes with zero regard to prisoners 'rights'.

Again, this statement does not even make any sense unless you

demonstrate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that regard for prisoners rights makes it harder to extract useful
information.

Your ability to repeat yourself while not addressing the point at hand is

very

Quoted message said:

impressive.

Quoted message said:

I'm saying in this context of our very survival we we need to free

ourselves

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of any constraint

But you haven't demonstrated that human rights are a constraint on
intelligence gathering. So why are you bringing up human rights ? Why
not bring up, say, "constraints" on pot smoking instead ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Fine, then why have we had so much adverse publicity with regard to American
treatment of prisoners in Cuba and Iraq with regard to intelligence
gathering if the conventional means of interrogation were all that is
necessary? The so called prisoner abuse was intended to 'break' the
prisoners. How would I know if this 'abuse' was helpful or not in gathering
info. I am saying that if it was deemed by the authorities that there is
maybe a method that would be more effective but infringes on their rights
then they should be able to pursue those methods without contstraint.

David said:

"Curt James" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Again, this statement does not even
make any sense unless you demonstrate
that regard for prisoners rights makes
it harder to extract useful information.

HUMAN HEAD IN HIS FREEZER!!!" *BLAAMMM!*
"Uh, yes, officer requests assistance.
Suspect was resisting arrest, uh huh.
That's right. Send the coroner, thanks."

Can we demonstrate that regard for prisoners
rights makes it harder to extract useful
information? And the logical follow-up:

My issue is not about 'what measures would
prove more successful' - it is that if there
are measures that will be more effective
but they trample on human rights, that we
should not be constrained

You're singing to the choir. It's my belief that an extreme lack of
constraint would add credibility and respect to any interviewer's
seriousness.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

David said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, you haven't shown that violating this persons rights (whatever that
means) will help.

It is not up to me to show that.

But it is, otherwise your question is ill-posed.

Quoted message said:

I am not an expert in interrogation
techniques (nor are you, I submit). There are many techniques that would be
considered abuse of prisoners rights that may be quite effective in getting
information.

For example ?

Quoted message said:

I read that prisoners have been sent to Egypt and Jordan where

Because we don't want them.
Because we can't prosecute them for treason (since they're foreign nationals).
Because we aren't interested in providing political asylum for terrorists.

Quoted message said:

they are free to practice these techniques

Who is "they" ? Why would the US turn over their best informants to a country
with whom they don't have deep military ties ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David said:

Fine, then why have we had so much adverse publicity with regard to American
treatment of prisoners in Cuba and Iraq with regard to intelligence
gathering if the conventional means of interrogation were all that is
necessary?

Why ? You make it sound as though prisoner abuse in war zones is
unprecedented. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quoted message said:

The so called prisoner abuse was intended to 'break' the prisoners.

Which instances specifically ? Based on the photos etc, I'd say that the
instances of abuse that resulted in public outrage were actually intended
to release the frustrations of some of the soldiers.

Quoted message said:

How would I know if this 'abuse' was helpful or not in gathering
info.

You could do some research on the topic.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

I scribbled:

Quoted message said:

You're singing to the choir.

Uh, that should be *preaching* to the choir, shouldn't it?

WHAT! NO, NOT TORTURE PUT THOSE PLIERS DOWN. GOD DAMN IT! REBBECHI WAS
RIGHT! IF ONLY I'D LISTENED WHEN I HAD THE CHANCE!!!
AAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

John Hanson said:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:16:28 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I firmly believe that western governments need to do whatever it takes to
extract information from terrorists/bombers that they are holding. There

can

Quoted message said:

be no rights for people who are intent on destroying our civilization.
Selective torture techniques must be on the menu for these barbarians or

we

Quoted message said:

are shirking our duty to protect our way of life. Really, if we knew that
torture applied to one individual could have prevented 9/11 with 3000

lives

Quoted message said:

lost and 1000 billion dollars down the drain can there be any argument??

The

Quoted message said:

next strike could mean 1 million lives lost.

Frinstance - if you held a man prisoner who you suspected had your missing
daughter somewhere and she was in danger - would you not apply any torture
techniques to extract information? Why would governments with infinitely
higher stakes act any differently?

I don't believe torture is a very reliable way to extract information.
I believe drugs are a better way of going.

There is a requirement to know torture in all its sophisticated forms
before writing it off, as it is as a very efficient way of extracting
information in a very short space of time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not an expert in interrogation
techniques (nor are you, I submit). There are many techniques that would be
considered abuse of prisoners rights that may be quite effective in getting
information.

For example ?

Keep them awake for weeks, randomize their food schedule, remove all reliable
external temporal referents, isolate them; isolation tanks supposedly have major
effects. Pharmacology.

What, I read fiction.

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, you haven't shown that violating this persons rights (whatever

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

means) will help.

It is not up to me to show that.

But it is, otherwise your question is ill-posed.

You are right in the sense that if present conventional techniques work just
as well as those that are at present not permitted for whatever reason then
my question is irrelevant. However I do not believe that your hypothesis is
correct. And my 'question' only states "should there be better ways that
involve torture that these ways should be pursued without contstraint". It
is establishing a principle that if not relevant today may be relevant
tomorrow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not an expert in interrogation
techniques (nor are you, I submit). There are many techniques that would

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

considered abuse of prisoners rights that may be quite effective in

getting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

information.

For example ?

All the examples that have come up recently in Cuba and that prison in Iraq
to do with female interaction, disrespecting the Koran, sleep deprivation
if not outright turture in all its forms

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I read that prisoners have been sent to Egypt and Jordan where

Because we don't want them.
Because we can't prosecute them for treason (since they're foreign

nationals).

Quoted message said:

Because we aren't interested in providing political asylum for terrorists.

And because we are not able to 'break' them given the constraints to do with
the various conventions and our perception of human rights

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are free to practice these techniques

Who is "they" ?

I clearly nominated who 'they' are - Egypt and Jordan

Quoted message said:

Why would the US turn over their best informants to a country
with whom they don't have deep military ties ?

As I said, certain prisoners were sent to Egypt and Jordan, countries
friendly to the USA, for their help in 'interrogating' the prisoners. -
Donovan, you must know the answers to your questions. These concepts are not
new

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

On 30 Jul 2005 13:09:13 -0700, "Travis" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David said:

There is some debate about the effectiveness of drugs. My point is that we
should do whatever it takes with zero regard to prisoners 'rights'.

Torture can be pretty unreliable itself. Torture someone cruelly
enough and they'll confess to anything just to get you to stop. There
is no guarantee that the information given under torture will be
accurate.

And of course there is the truly horrific possibility that a person who
is completely innocent would be tortured. You'd want to have virtual
certainty that the torture subject would actually have the information
you need before you go reaching for the hammer and pliers.

And this is the absolute when using interrogation techniques, there
must be no doubt that the interrogatee has the information that is
required!

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

Fine, then why have we had so much adverse publicity with regard to

American

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

treatment of prisoners in Cuba and Iraq with regard to intelligence
gathering if the conventional means of interrogation were all that is
necessary?

Why ? You make it sound as though prisoner abuse in war zones is
unprecedented. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That's not the issue

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The so called prisoner abuse was intended to 'break' the prisoners.

Which instances specifically ? Based on the photos etc, I'd say that the
instances of abuse that resulted in public outrage were actually intended
to release the frustrations of some of the soldiers.

Your opinion is conjecture as my opinion also would be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How would I know if this 'abuse' was helpful or not in gathering
info.

You could do some research on the topic.

Research on whether 'torture' works would not by definition be available.
Who would admit they used illegal techniques?

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Curt James" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I scribbled:

Quoted message said:

You're singing to the choir.

Uh, that should be *preaching* to the choir, shouldn't it?

WHAT! NO, NOT TORTURE PUT THOSE PLIERS DOWN. GOD DAMN IT! REBBECHI WAS
RIGHT! IF ONLY I'D LISTENED WHEN I HAD THE CHANCE!!!
AAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

very funny!

Quoted message said:

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

JMW schrieb:

Quoted message said:

Sgt. Fragger' rrlll@555 said:

David schrieb:

Quoted message said:

I firmly believe that western governments need to do whatever it takes to
extract information from terrorists/bombers that they are holding. There can
be no rights for people who are intent on destroying our civilization.
Selective torture techniques must be on the menu for these barbarians or we
are shirking our duty to protect our way of life. Really, if we knew that
torture applied to one individual could have prevented 9/11 with 3000 lives
lost and 1000 billion dollars down the drain can there be any argument?? The
next strike could mean 1 million lives lost.

agreed. We only need to throw them in a river with a big weight around
their neck. If they drown, this means that they were innocent and are
now with the lord. If however they manage to come back to the surface,
this must mean that the devil helped them somehow and they should now be
burned at the stakes. Either way everybody wins really.

Aw, hell, "saboteur," you can do better than that. I'll bet you have
books of all Josef Mengele's research, don't you?

Mengele? The man in charge of typhus prevention at the workcamp?

David said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

Fine, then why have we had so much adverse publicity with regard to

American

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

treatment of prisoners in Cuba and Iraq with regard to intelligence
gathering if the conventional means of interrogation were all that is
necessary?

Why ? You make it sound as though prisoner abuse in war zones is
unprecedented. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That's not the issue

But it is. You asked, "why have we had such adverse publicity with rgard
to American treatment of prisoners ... "

Well, the answer is that we had bad publicity because this is generally
frowned upon.

But I suspect what you meant to ask is, why were these methods deployed ? And
my response to that is, that prisoner abuse is the norm, not the exception,
AND that prisoner abuse generally takes place even when the prisoner does not
have useful information.

In other words, I answered your question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The so called prisoner abuse was intended to 'break' the prisoners.

Which instances specifically ? Based on the photos etc, I'd say that the
instances of abuse that resulted in public outrage were actually intended
to release the frustrations of some of the soldiers.

Your opinion is conjecture as my opinion also would be

My opinion is based on the fact that as far as we know, the more severe forms
of abuse were not ordered by the higher-ups.

Quoted message said:

Research on whether 'torture' works would not by definition be available.
Who would admit they used illegal techniques?

Torture has been practised all over the world for centuries. So if it works,
there should be plenty of evidence available.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/