AP Mobile: Internal CIA Report :Interogators threatenned to kill suspects children.

[aREDSKIN]

Int he coarse of an interrogation, yes. They can say anything.

Yep, threats, lies etc are part and parcel of LEOS MO's.

Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession.

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_police_lies.htm

[Larry]

Int he coarse of an interrogation, yes. They can say anything.

In your opinion, how far are we allowed to go, to make the threat believable?

Can we show them their kidnapped children in a room with a wood chipper?

Can I threaten to kill the subject?

As part of my threat, can I point my gun at his head?

Can I then fire a round from the gun, past his head? (Suppose I missed intentionally. Maybe the gun only contains a single round.)

Can I kill someone else in front of the subject? (He was sentenced to death by a court, legally. I just don't tell the subject that.)

(BTW, I don't know if I'd want to make such threats to a subject, mainly because the subject might rather die. He might consider being killed under interrogation to be a victory. So I'm not claiming that we would want to use the threat of death, because it might not work. My question is do we have the moral right to do so.)

[Larry]

aREDSKIN,

Recommend leaving The Evil Police out of this thread. It's touchy (and important) enough.

[Kilmer17]

In your opinion, how far are we allowed to go, to make the threat believable?

Can we show them their kidnapped children in a room with a wood chipper?

Can I threaten to kill the subject?

As part of my threat, can I point my gun at his head?

Can I then fire a round from the gun, past his head? (Suppose I missed intentionally. Maybe the gun only contains a single round.)

Can I kill someone else in front of the subject? (He was sentenced to death by a court, legally. I just don't tell the subject that.)

(BTW, I don't know if I'd want to make such threats to a subject, mainly because the subject might rather die. He might consider being killed under interrogation to be a victory. So I'm not claiming that we would want to use the threat of death, because it might not work. My question is do we have the moral right to do so.)

Again Larry, we can SAY anything we want in an interrogation.

The rest of your rant may or may not be okay, but it's not relevant to the OPs "outrage".

[Larry]

Again Larry, we can SAY anything we want in an interrogation.

The rest of your rant may or may not be okay, but it's not relevant to the OPs "outrage".

My question stands. Are we allowed to make the threat credible?

[skinfan133]

As long as there wasn't any intention to follow through with those threats, there isn't a problem. There's a big difference between saying you'll do something and meaning you'll do it JMS.

I think your moral outrage is a little misplaced here.

I'm a staunch supporter of the Army Field Manual interegation methods and I think the practice of rendition and torture is crude and barbaric, but this is honestly nothing to get worked up about.

[Kilmer17]

My question stands. Are we allowed to make the threat credible?

Make your own thread if you want. We're discussing the verbal threat.

[skinfan133]

Good God Larry. Are you reading what you're writing??

There's a plethora of history and court rulings that say you're wrong. There's nothing morally outrageous about lying to a prisoner of war.

would you have such a position if this were WWII and the prisoners being interrogated were captured SS?

[Larry]

Make your own thread if you want. We're discussing the verbal threat.

Are you morally OK with al Qaeda threatening to kill American civilians? Or captured prisoners?

[Smoot Point Really]

I think it would depend on the circumstances to determine whether or not someone should make a threat credible or not... I'm fairly certain this type of interrogation method isn't individuals acting alone (like Jack Bauer), but a group of interrogators approve of the method after determining whether or not the intel reward would merit the risk associated with that method. Perhaps sleep deprivation and other softening techniques would be all that is required for someone in that state to believe the threat credible. They also could've been testing whether or not this method would produce effective intel for future use.

Hopefully, the current administration isn't hampering our agencies' abilities to gather intel... I don't necessarily want to know how sausage is made... Just make sure the men involved aren't damaging their honor or the country's.

[skinfan133]

Are you morally OK with al Qaeda threatening to kill American civilians? Or captured prisoners?

that's not even close to comparable. You really think Al Qaeda is bluffing when they threaten such things?

[Kilmer17]

Are you morally OK with al Qaeda threatening to kill American civilians? Or captured prisoners?

Im morally fine with any govt interrogation using any "words" they want.

Unfortunately, the US is the only country that abides by that limit.

[Larry]

that's not even close to comparable. You really think Al Qaeda is bluffing when they threaten such things?

So you're saying that the credibility of the threat is a factor? :halo:

[Larry]

Im morally fine with any govt interrogation using any "words" they want.

Unfortunately, the US is the only country that abides by that limit.

But not with answering questions.

[Smoot Point Really]

Interesting... Looks like my post was deleted for some reason. Not that important, I guess.

BTW, I'd like to say that I wouldn't be okay with anyone threatening American civilians. I'm totally fine with American or European interrogators threatening terrorists. I don't believe in the moral relativism that terrorists are just "freedom fighters" and that US Soldiers are morally equivalent to terrorists. I'm sure people who really hate Bush/Cheney would disagree with me.

Edit: I see it now... is the internet really screwing up today for other folks?

Edit 2: There! I answered your question, Larry...

[skinfan133]

So you're saying that the credibility of the threat is a factor? :halo:

A factor, perhaps not the factor, but a factor none the less.

[Kilmer17]

But not with answering questions.

How SHOULD we interrogate people?

[Larry]

Interesting... Looks like my post was deleted for some reason. Not that important, I guess.

BTW, I'd like to say that I wouldn't be okay with anyone threatening American civilians. I'm totally fine with American or European interrogators threatening terrorists. I don't believe in the moral relativism that terrorists are just "freedom fighters" and that US Soldiers are morally equivalent to terrorists. I'm sure people who really hate Bush/Cheney would disagree with me.

Edit: I see it now... is the internet really screwing up today for other folks?

Edit 2: There! I answered your question, Larry...

Who said anything about "freedom fighters?

My question is: Is it OK to threaten physical violence against a helpless victim?

And your answer is "Only if it's us doing the threatening"?

And you're throwing the dreaded "moral relativism" label at me?

[The Evil Genius]

that's not even close to comparable. You really think Al Qaeda is bluffing when they threaten such things?

The thing is...you live in a foreign country your whole life and you are raised hearing stories about how evil the US is and how their soldiers rape, kill, and pillage.

Do you think they are bluffing when you are caught?

It's an effective strategy. But it's still dirty play.

And I like it.

[ljs]

So...anyone else on here actually been through SERE training?

Skinfan13- do you guys go through any type of SERE training at VMI?

let me tell you- even knowing that you're a "POW" in a training enviorment doesn't help. The guys(and gals) running that school really know how to make it real. The tactic of threats, including physical threats, is a main tactic used.(and it works)

[Larry]

How SHOULD we interrogate people?

Question's way too complicated to answer in a message board post.

But I'll take a shot at maybe something kinda close.

First answer: It depends on the people.

In the often-used "nuclear bomb in a US city" scenario, I've got no problem with pulling out body parts or using a blowtorch.

I think there should be

really

serious restrictions on it. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with it simply being ilegal, 100% of the time. If Jack Bauer is confident enough that the threat is imminent, Right Now, then he goes ahead, he tortures, he defuses the nuke, . . . and then he spends 20 years in Leavenworth. But he knows in his heart that it was worth it.

(In effect, he becomes like what Ollie North thinks he is. He knowingly broke the law, but he figures that he had a good enough reason that breaking the law, and taking the punishment for it, is worth it.)

Or I could see a situation where torturing prisoners becomes like the "he needed killing" defense: Something that's not recognized in any law book whatsoever. But if 12 out of 12 people agree that you had a Good Enough Reason, then you did.

In short, I could live with a situation where, if you aren't willing to stand in a courtroom and say "yes, I tortured this guy, and here's why", then you don't have a good enough reason to torture the guy.

In short, I can see a hypothetical situation in which outright, medieval torture is perfectly justified.

OTOH, the overwhelming evidence says that the folks we've sent to GTMO aren't there because of nuclear bombs in Tulsa. That the standard that's used to get someone sent to GTMO is "He might know something useful."

I assume that the question is "how do we interrogate those people?"

And I don't know if I can write any hard and fast rules. Only feelings.

And that's a much fuzzier specification.

Frankly, I'm not certain that this is over the line. (I'd say I'm about 80% towards "it's over the line".)

So, was that long-winded, rambling, probably incoherent post close to what you were looking for?

[ljs]

how in the world does "lying to get the answer" turn into "they were torturing??"

go figure

[Bang]

Doesn't sound like being out of line to me. Let's face it, war sucks. People die. And if they believe their kids may be among the casualties, maybe they'll think about that.

If we actually assassinated any kids, that would be something else entirely.

~Bang

[skinfan133]

So...anyone else on here actually been through SERE training?

Skinfan13- do you guys go through any type of SERE training at VMI?

let me tell you- even knowing that you're a "POW" in a training enviorment doesn't help. The guys(and gals) running that school really know how to make it real. The tactic of threats, including physical threats, is a main tactic used.(and it works)

not at school, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen in a heartbeat. I believe Air Force ROTC makes you go through a POW reaction course. I know Marine NROTC does something like this second class year (junior).

[AAARedskin]

Where's the controversy? I mean, this was said to MUSLIM TERRORISTS right? So what? Oh, and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has far more credibility than the worthless Huffington Post ever will......