Sexual Practices at Guantanamo

Do we believe the Military will tell us what useful information they have gained and jeopardize operations? I can agree that maybe some independent government investigations into said practices should be done. I think we are all assuming much when we state we know whats effective, what useful intel has been gathered, etc....The issue of if its "right" even if its useful Ok. Otherwise show your intelligence credentials and enlighten us on effective and moral methods.
 
Oh, boy. Did you not have civics classes in junior high--you know, "American Government," and the rest?

See, the way this works (or is supposed to) in this country, everything the military does is subject to civilian oversight. Sometimes, we elect representatives who do the overseeing, especially when there's information that shouldn't just be floating around loose.

But see, in a democracy, what you DON'T do is to let the military and the spies do whatever they wish without any oversight at all. See, among other things, our representatives are supposed to be checking to make sure that what the soldiers and the spies are doing doesn't violate our Constitution, our laws, and our international treaties. See, the idea is that democracies are wiser than autocracies and last longer, because in the long run their frivolous insistence upon scrutiny, acccountability, morality pays off practically.

Oh yeah--and just generally speaking? See, in a democracy, the idea is that the People, yes the People, are collectively wiser than the experts. it's a frustrating and sloppy way to run a government--but as Churchill noted, "Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable--except for all the others."

But idealism aside, the problem you're having is that you have NO, repeat NO evidence whatsover of a case in which torture (at least you're now using the word) yielded such significant results that you can even reasonably argue for its necessity.
 
Did you miss the part where I said that I agree that investigations should be done? Do you think the CIA should open its files of ongoing operations/intel/personnel for public scrutiny?
 
Well, I see your point. I agree that the Bush government guys who leaked the "intel," about serving CIA agents to Robert Novak should be investigated, tried, and stuck in the slammer.
 
I think some comments here are getting a little out of control. There is a BIG difference in interrogation and torture. michaeledwards, Tgace showed you with that link what I was talking about, but to further answer your question. There are several types of interrogators in the U.S. military. It depends on what your definition of interrogation is. Like I said earlier, there is a big difference in interrogation and torture. When you mentioned in your earlier post about the FBI, CIA, and U.S. military being interrogators, you need to understand that the FBI conducts different types of interrogations than the CIA and tha military. They interrrogate more for the purpose of solving a crime. The CIA and military interrogate more to gain intel into what "may" occur or to intercept a situation. There is an entire branch in the U.S. military called "Military Intelligence" made up of Intel Officers and Counter Intelligence Agents. Intel gathering is their full time job. There is also another branch in the Army known as the Criminal Investigation Division (CID). They are known as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) in the Navy, and the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in the Air Force. These agencies are made up of Special Agents and conduct felony criminal investigations and "interrogate" people on a daily basis. Members of all these services work consistantly with the FBI, DEA, US Marshal Service, ATF, and every other federal agency in this country, including the CIA. While stateside, these agent's jobs are mirror images of FBI Special Agents, but when deployed to a conflict theater, they can take on more of a CIA role. All branches of the military have had these agencies for many years longer than Sep 11 2001. When I was in the U.S. Army, I was with CID. Maybe this helps clear it up a little.

Respectfully,
Shane
 
So what is your take on "this stuff dosent work" and "They are just going to tell you what you want to hear (and thus zero value)" arguments people have been expressing?
 
Tgace said:
So what is your take on "this stuff dosent work" and "They are just going to tell you what you want to hear (and thus zero value)" arguments people have been expressing?
Click to expand...
Well, as far as inflicting physical pain, that would more than likely cause some one to give you false information. They will just tell you what you want to hear. Some times mental games can cause some one to tell you what you want to hear. You had it right in an earlier post when you stated all information must be double checked. Everyone must realize that people from different parts of the world have different views on what is important to them. You being a police officer yourself have more than likely ran into this. If anyone on this forum has been trained in detecting lies during an interview/interrogation (two completely different things) then you will know what I'm talking about. Different cultures respond to questioning or people of authority differently. One good example of this is here in the US when some one looks away from you when being questioned it is usually taken as a sign of deception, but when talking to some one from an asian culture, they usually look away from the person in an authority position to show respect. The opposite would be true if talking to some one from the middle east area and showing them or them showing you the bottom of their feet. This is a sign of disrespect. I haven't been to Cuba and participated in the interrogations so I do not know what interrogation practices are being used. Kind of long winded, but to try and answer your question, a good interrogator will know the subjects background and WILL be able to get information without being abusive or inhumane.

I just want to add this,
Contrary to popular belief, interrogators already know the answers to most of what they are asking you. Remember that next time you lie to the police.:wink2:
 
In your opinion....things like lighting manipulation, feeding manipulation, isolation, uncomfortable positioning...torture? or not?
 
Tgace said:
In your opinion....things like lighting manipulation, feeding manipulation, isolation, uncomfortable positioning...torture? or not?
Click to expand...
Well maybe not so much the isolation, or uncomfortable position. I see the others as torture more than isolation or uncomfortable position. Versions of these two are widely used in interrogation. I mean, I'm sure your department doesn't allow a suspect/subject to sit in a recliner while being interviewed. Likewise, I doubt they are allowed to sit next to their buddies and discuss their answer before responding.
 
So is it legal for Them--you may fill in the "THEM," blank as you like--to do this stuff to OUR servicepeople, spies, paramilitaries, advisors, civilian irregulars, etc?
 
If it was just things like lighting, sleep dep. etc. alone, Id say it would be better treatment than OUR people have had at the hands of any enemy weve had to date...
 
Tgace said:
So what is your take on "this stuff dosent work" and "They are just going to tell you what you want to hear (and thus zero value)" arguments people have been expressing?
Click to expand...

Ummm.... that its actually backed up by science and available research??

Y'know, one has to wonder what the origin for the "torture really works!!" paradigm is --- considering we have no science, data, or statistics to indicate it does. I have my own suspicions, of course, but I'm sure everyone here is clever enough to figure out what they are.

On a deeper level, though, we can just forget the science, the facts, and the "utilitarianism". I'm just a bit discouraged that people are so readily open to moral compromise. How, its "inhuman", "barbaric", and "evil" when the Bad Guy (or Other or Shadow or whatever term you wish to use) does it to us --- but its just okey-dokey, "justified", "necessary", or even scarily "righteous" when we do it to them.

Of course, there is research concerning "moral compromise under authority", too, if any of you are familiar with the classic Milgram experiment.

Just some gems to think about.
 
How would you address the issue of gaining military intelligence from an unwilling subject?
 
Tgace said:
How would you address the issue of gaining military intelligence from an unwilling subject?
Click to expand...

Deception and psychological warfare. Physical violence is crude and ineffective.

Y'know, personally, I think some people may have just seen one too many episodes of 24 here. A helpful reminder: its fiction.
 
So for you, tgrace, it would be perfectly legal, and moral, provided that, say, Kim Il Sung or whoever decided it was in his country's best interest.
 
I would say that if I were captured and knew anything that they wanted, I would expect them to try and find out what I knew. Note on this thread and on the survey I stated that I think that "non-violent" (read not necesarily "nice" but not beatings, sex abuse etc) means such as lighting, isolation, stress positions (minus the sexual, religious stuff), feeding, time altering would be acceptable and would expect it to happen to me. Thats what our SERE schools teach our military to expect (plus physical abuse).

I believe that N.Korea has some vastly expanded techniques in their handbook that are policy.
 
If your asking how I would "like" to be treated by the enemy. Well id like Single Rooms, trips to the beach and movie nights, but things just dont work out that way. Of course I was just a lowly NCO, besides mundane tactical information I wouldnt have been worth much effort.
 
rmcrobertson said:
So is it legal for Them--you may fill in the "THEM," blank as you like--to do this stuff to OUR servicepeople, spies, paramilitaries, advisors, civilian irregulars, etc?
Click to expand...
Whats legal got to do with it? Jaywalking is illegal too, you know...

Acceptable is a better term.
 
You folks are the ones who've been arguing that torture is a) not a big deal, b) legal, c) moral in the right circumstances.

So if we can, why can't They?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Another privacy issue...or is it?

Previous Thread

Free Elections in Iraq

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top