I'm certainly no expert on torture, but every "expert" I've heard interviewed or read about recently says that physical torture is a very inefficient method of garnering information.

And the 70% "statistic" came from Army Major General Taguba who wrote the initial US Army report on abuses in the Iraqi prisons. He supposedly is an expert.

Quite true... physical torture itself is not effective in gathering any sort of detailed information and is moderately effective in gathering immediate tactical information (well thats always what the SSF lecture was). The problem is that under physical duress the subject will tailor their responses to suit what they percieve as your desired answer.. ie. they tell you what you want to hear.
More effective methods inculde the usual array of psychological techniques: fear of torture, sensory deprevation, sexual/social humiliation, and sleep deprevation. The added mental anguish inflicted by these techniques serves to keep the subject off balance and unable to consentrate effectively, making it harder to stick to a story over repeated interogation sessions.

DeltAlum, donkey rides are often inefficient, but sometimes they have to be used. What might be inefficient in general, might be very efficient in that specific situation. I did not say torture everyone and anyone, but every expert from intelligence to police teams will tell you that stress is used.

If I have a bomb going off in 30 minutes and I have the terrorist who planned it in my hands and he isn't talking, what do I do? I've offered him the carrot, and now it's time to use the stick.

-Rudey

What happened to water purification?

Clearly there must be some means of extracting needed information. Someone has to set the boundries, though, as to where interogation ends and torture begins. And someone has to decide how far we are willing to go, considering our national moral standards and the rules of warfare and international law.

Thankfully, that someone isn't me.

If we cross that line somewhere, we have to be ready to accept the fact that we're not always the good guys -- and/or be ready to accept the consequences of our action(s).

A lot of people have decided we've crossed the line. So now it apparantely comes to who decided it was OK to do that, and what to do to/with those who were involved.

This isn't the first time it has happened, and, sadly, probably won't be the last. But, for the most part, I think we try to stay on the high side of the equation. As we should.

I believe we are good guys and that mistakes do happen. And yes I also believe that there should be checks and balances. Dershowitz's recommendation was to have psychologists independent of the intelligence and military reporting on what they see and if any very unacceptable boundaries are crossed. His other recommendation might be to have someone very senior, possibly a very high-level person (ie president or vp) give permission for each specific incident.

Beating a man who is in prison and knows nothing (when you know he knows nothing) is unacceptable. Torture for torture's sake is unacceptable. Torture for pleasure is unacceptable. The fine details are things that I do not and can not even begin to detail so I will stick to large general statements like that. In the case of Abu Gharib full details have not been released over who was "tortured", what treatment they received, the intent, etc.

Again, you can't just make these wide generalities about what is right and wrong. What is right in one situation might not be in another. You glossed over my human time bomb example only because, I assume, you would have difficult answering it.

-Rudey
--And my desalination comment wouldn't be understood by many people so I made a more common point of reference

No, actually, I don't remember reading anything about a human time bomb. Guess it didn't make an impression.

ETA that I don't recall setting an generalities. I believe I said that someone (not me) had to make a judgement. I also think I said that we are on the high side of the equation -- and generally the good guys.

But we're not perfect.

If you have a man who set up a bomb and won't tell you where it is and you've tried everything including incentive and stress, what do you do?

-Rudey

Sorry, I think I was editing my last while you were posting this.

To answer your question, if lives are involved, I suppose you do whatever is necessary. But again, that's not for me to decide in a forum like this. Which is good.

However, I don't think that there is much of a corelation to one person and a bomb and hundreds of people -- most (if you believe the aformentioned Generals report) of whom know little or nothing important.

Finally, "experts" who discount torture as a valid interrogation technique also say that physical violence also doesn't generally do anything except make the victim say whatever it is you want him to say -- not necessarily the truth.

These same exoerts say that it has worked in the past, including one situation where torture was applied over 40 days to save the pope from being bombed. It may not be right for every situation but it might be for some.

-Rudey

The Pope's drinking habits aren't my problem. Ok, that's a really bad joke.

I will admit that there are exceptions to every rule and many situations. The problem under debate here, though, as I understand it is whether we personally condone the type of treatment allegedly given to a large number of people who probably didn't have any information to give.

My answer remains that I don't condone it in this case.

So you are absolutely certain that all the Abu Gharib prisoners had no information to give? There have been reports that some didn't but nobody has come out with any "absolute" statements yet.

-Rudey

As mentioned before, I'm going by the Army's official report by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba. That's where the 70% number originated.

70% is not 100% and I don't have the time to look at his report right now, but I thought that 70% was in reference to those that might not have information that were jailed. That doesn't even mean that all of those were subjected to this. I'm only going off what others have said in this thread and haven't read the actual report.

-Rudey

True, but this line of comments began when someone (don't remember who for sure) said that the people in this prison were there because they were trying to kill Americans. That apparantely is not true, or at least can't be proven at all, for 70% of them.

But I think it's a statistical likelyhood that some of those "innocent" folks were treated pretty badly. There lies the problem.

Had you been falsly arrested (or even mistakenly) and subjected to rigorous interrogation, you probably wouldn't be much of a happy camper in the end either.

While I do not condone any of this. what is the amount of lives that must be lost?:confused:

Anyone with a mind set who finds children and women and profess The Teachings of Allah are sending them out are l who do not profess this are little more than animals..

Mosques are Holy Places, for Musilums, but they hide there or in Cemetaries, hide there.

Do I know the feelings of these people who were oppressed by somepone who killed those who did not agree with Him

Now, the Infandels are the oppressors.

Just drop a damn bomb on them and say okay, you wanted to gas us, use children, women to kill us!

WOW, let liberal reign. This is war! We are having People Killed there everyday by these little deviouse means!

Da, they even killed their own President of the new Iraqi Govt.

I am really impressed by them!:mad:

How soon we forget so many things!j :(

Has your Husband, Wife, or Child been there? Have you been there?

Sorry D A I am not a bleeding liberal, not pointed at you at all!

If you are so full of fight, then go fight! Dont talk Crap!