Interrogation tactics

[coastie]

In light of all of the information being obtained from Al-Queda members, I was curious as to how this information was obtained. I did a search and HERE is what I came up with.

These are some of the tactics described:

1. A panel of interrogators may subject the suspect to a shouted string of nonsensical questions to create a ``surreal'' environment, in which a ``real'' question finally provides relief.

2.If the suspect is a low-level operative, his interrogators could subject him to hours and days of sophisticated queries he would not know how to answer, wearing away his confidence, then suddenly spring an easy question he would be eager to answer.

3. Simulating newscasts reporting major losses for the enemy could wear down a captive's morale, inducing a ``why not tell all'' attitude.

Other tactics are decribed in the article. Some are not as humane. I was curious what everyone's opinin was on this sort of thing. It is obvious that the CIA is much kinder and gentler than it was during the cold war, but where should the line be drawn for inhumane treatment vs. the possible loss of more lives?

taken from the same article:

``You're basically not allowed to use anything to overcome the person's free will,'' said Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch.

Zach

 

[coastie]

Come on now... some one's got to have an opinion about this!

 

[Brimshack]

I suspect they may be going beyond what you mentioned, but I don't have a definite opinion on it yet. I have not yet heard an adequate explanation as to who they were blindfolded. I've heard some stuff about security, but I think it more likely that this was a pretext, and the real goal was disorientation. Also, stripping Walker naked sounds like another tactic designed to get him to talk. Right now I'm sure that people are thinking about the information pay-off that would follow from techniques which may amount to torture, but I think most political regimes which use torture as a tactic use it more as a means of intimidating political opposition than as a means of protecting the populace. I'm not saying I am definitely against anything they are doing now, just concerned.

 

[Susan]

I have an opinion, but I don't want to share it on the Internet. Too many eyes around if you catch my meaning.

 

[Susan]

Just consider me an overly suspicious one who's heard what snooping can do for people.
I think the First Amendment went out the window for good last week sometime, (except for p*rn*graphers, they get free reign still ) so I'm saying one thing.
Shush.

 

[Brimshack]

The First Amendment has been under constant strain since at least Adam's administration. You win some and you lose some, and the right position is always debatable, but even the worst decisions haven't led to it's ultimate demise. As for your own opinion, think of it this way, the government isn't likely to care too much what people who spend so much time in chat-rooms really say about the government. It is doubtful that much we say here will pose any real threat to those on high.

The only way rights like those in the first amendment survives anyway is if we use those rights as often as possible. So, don't shush!

 

[Susan]

It may not be dangerous to those "on high" but it may very well endanger our own freedom or health, unless you are using an anonymous IP or something lol

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Lessee, the quotation is:
_____

"You're basically not allowed to use anything to
overcome the person's free will," said Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch.
_____

Ach, don't make me lose my lunch. What goody-two-shoes, pc, bleeding-heart liberal crapola. Mr. Fellner obviously lives in some theoreticakl fantasyland, divorced from anything remotely approaching reality. A democracy is NOT obliged to commit suicide by letting terrorists (whose ethos is the very antithesis of democracy & liberty) use its rules against it; it is sheer idiocy to either claim otherwise or hold to a position which amounts to this in practice. This is like holding to the Marquis of Queensbury's rules when your opponent wants a gouge fight. I live in a country where car-bombs, suicide-attacks, etc. are, sadly, an almost daily occurence. 14-month-old babies get blown up with their grandmothers at cafes & women who are nine months pregnant get machine-gunned in their homes. We should let some smirking, murdering terrorist SOB hide behind a sheet of paper when he has information about impending attacks? What rot! Our security forces have the right, under the strict supervision of the Attorney-General & the Supreme Court, to use "moderate physical & pstchological pressure" in the case of a so-called "ticking bomb". And thank God they do! Mr. Human Rights Watch gets his bloomers in a twist because some terrorist doesn't get 8 hours of sleep in an air-conditioned hotel with a mint under his pollow but doesn't give a whit if a bomb explodes in a crowded mall, killing Lord-knows-how-many people. Oh, excuse me, I've got that wrong. He will wag his finger from the safety of his ivory tower office & say, "Bad terrorists! Bad! You shouldn't do things like that!" Those mourning for their loved ones will, I'm sure, be much comforted thereby. Terrorism is war & terrorists must be treated accordingly. Those who motivated by hatred, who have only contempt and scorn for the democratic liberties we hold dear, cannot be allowed to use those very same democratic liberties against said democracy.]

Grrrr.....

Be well!

ssv

 

[coastie]

I suspect they may be going beyond what you mentioned, but I don't have a definite opinion on it yet.

I agree. I despise political and military conspiracy theories because I believe that they give way too much credit to the government. However, in this circumstance, I don't think that they are goign to tell you what exactly is happening behind closed doors so as to not give the enemy a chance or means to prepare for the tactics.

but I think most political regimes which use torture as a tactic use it more as a means of intimidating political opposition than as a means of protecting the populace.

For the use to be controlled it needs to become public or near public knowledge, however, it wouldn't be allowed if it were, and the kinder tactics would be easier to prepare for. Hmmm, I hate catch 22's!

Just consider me an overly suspicious one who's heard what snooping can do for people.

Actually, I think you're paranoid j/k. Believe me, right now, the intel community has much bigger fish to fry.

The only way rights like those in the first amendment survives anyway is if we use those rights as often as possible. So, don't shush!

Couldn't agree more! You have those rights because people have worked their behinds off to get them for you, so use them!

Our security forces have the right, under the strict supervision of the Attorney-General & the Supreme Court, to use "moderate physical & pstchological pressure" in the case of a so-called "ticking bomb".

Do you think that the supervision can honestly be madated. Who holds them accountable. It would take only one extreme national with a lot of carisma to persuade them that there is no such thing as too much. I don't know exactly what's happening, but I would prefer that the US didn't make the same political mistakes Guatemala once did.

on second thought. I believe the question isn't so much "who would supervise?" but "where shoudl the lines be drawn?" Because I do some lines and rules need to be in place to eliminate illicit use of the strategies.

Terrorism is war & terrorists must be treated accordingly. Those who motivated by hatred, who have only contempt and scorn for the democratic liberties we hold dear, cannot be allowed to use those very same democratic liberties against said democracy.

Losing liberties, I can deal with, losing my wife because some guy plows a truck filled with fertilizer into her building, that I can't. When you start refering to torture as a means to attain political stability, my skin crawls.

 

[TC]

LOL!! Wow, Stillsmallvoice, you sure detonated!!
You are right. Interrogating war prisoners for information is not the same thing as interrogating criminals for evidence against them. When your families, children, wives and nation is at stake, you get the information you need.

As far as the Conspiracy theories, I wouldn't rule them out just yet, folks. I believe that many theories hold water, considering what evidence I've seen and read through the years. All it would take is the dumbing agent that somehow gets into the D.C. water to clear up and the politicians to be able to think clearly and intelligently and we will be in trouble!

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Coastie posted:

"Do you think that the supervision can honestly be madated. Who holds them accountable. It would take only one extreme national with a lot of carisma to persuade them that there is no such thing as too much. I don't know exactly what's happening, but I would prefer that the US didn't make the same political mistakes Guatemala once did."

Let's see, my answers are yes & the people. I think that you grossly overestimate the effect that "one extreme national[ist] with a lot of charisma" could have on our Supreme Court & Atty.-Gen. I imagine that you don't become a Supreme Court judge without a lot of experience in knowing a snow job when you see it. Our Supreme Court happens to be controlled by judges whose commitment to civil rights, due process & the rule of law is very great. It is the bane of our right-wing, especially the religious right, who claim that it's too liberal & too secular.

"When you start refering to torture as a means to attain political stability, my skin crawls."

Huh??? Who said anything about using torture to attain political stability? Certainly not me! I didn't talk about torture & our sole concern is preventing acts of mass murder.

A very wise person once urged us to never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence and/or idiocy. (Of course...that's just what I would want you to think...See you on the grassy knoll!)

Be well!

ssv

 

[coastie]

Let's see, my answers are yes & the people.

The tactics wouldn't be as effective if they were public knowledge. The terrorists or whoever would knwo what to prepare for.

I think that you grossly overestimate the effect that "one extreme national[ist] with a lot of charisma" could have on our Supreme Court & Atty.-Gen.

You are probably right, but what if that person is head of the NSA or the CIA or FBI for that matter. But I was more or less speaking regarding the Israeli system of government (which, I admit, I have minimal knowledge of).

Huh??? Who said anything about using torture to attain political stability?

you said:

Those who motivated by hatred, who have only contempt and scorn for the democratic liberties we hold dear, cannot be allowed to use those very same democratic liberties against said democracy.

Democratic liberties we hold dear? that sounds like you are refering simply to political stabilty which takes a back seat to the value of human life in my book.

A very wise person once urged us to never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence and/or idiocy.

That's a good quote, mind if I use it?

 

[TC]

What's this about the Supreme Court, committed to civil rights, due process and rule of law? What a riot!! It has been a political animal dedicated to changing policy and rewriting the meaning of the law. What the left could not do through legitimate law-making, they did through the highjacking of the courts and the perverting of the system. The attorny general is a political appointee who can't be trusted to do the right thing, as we saw with Janet Reno.
What will be the landscape in another 250 years is anyone's guess, but if the citizens aren't vigilant in keeping a watchful eye on their government as they were intended to do, it won't necessarily be good.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
Etc.

Totally off-topic question: what is that avatar picture you have? It looks like the label off a bottle of Guinness beer, but I doubt that is what it is.....

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I 'pologize for not replying sooner but our youngest has Da Pox (he looks like a pepperoni pizza), thus following me (3 weeks ago) and his older brother (5 weeks ago). DW says that at least the next man in her life who she has to worry about vis-a-vis Da Pox will be a grandson/

Lessee...

Yes, my avatar is a Guinness label. I love the stuff, especially when accompanied by a single-malt Irish whiskey chaser. (God Bless Ireland!)

"You are probably right, but what if that person is head of the NSA or the CIA or FBI ..."

All the more reason for our SC judges & Atty.-Gen. (a former District Court judge) to be doubly & triply suspicious & on their guard.

"Democratic liberties we hold dear? that sounds like you are refering simply to political stabilty..."

No. not at all, to heck with political stability. I am chiefly referring to that most basic of democratic liberties, the right to life. (We've got a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist here on record as saying: "The Jews love life more than anyone else; therefore, we will overwhelm them with death.")

Please, by all means, feel free to use my conspiracy/incompetence quotation, although I certainly didn't make it up.

Be well!

ssv