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

[Larry]

Here's an easier one for you: A terrorist plot that will take place within days has been outed and the CIA has one person in custody that likely knows the details (time and place).

Ooh, goody. Let's drag out the same fictional, contrived, scenario that we've been using ever since Day 1.

Can anybody play? How about I make one up?

Suppose you have in custody, someone who might know some information that might be useful in some way, in some situation, somewhere. (Or he might not.) But, if you abuse this person while he's in custody, then, 50 years from now, the US Secret Police will be making political dissidents disappear from within the US, based on nebulous, secret, declarations that this person might know someone else who disagrees with the government. What do you do?

[JMS]

AQ and any one fighting along side of them or the Taliban is now a irreguar Militia? :laugh:

We don't know the age of kids when they are firing weapons at us, how in the hell are we suppose to give them special allownces? :laugh:

:laugh: We held the twelve year old through his 17th birthday..... I would figure after year 2-3 years we would be able to tell a 12 year old from a man. Much sooner than that would be reasonable.

Oh and it's not like we only had one child in custody at GITMO, either. We had quite a few, google child detanee and amnesty international if you are interested.

Did you see the special on Nat Geo about Gitmo?

These people are treated very nicely and with a lot of respect. That is by far the cleanest prison I have watched on any special on the various prisons around our world. They cuss at, spit on and disgrace our soldiers every single, and for the most part get treated with kindness in return. I would have a hard time not giving some serious beat downs if some dude spit on me. The way they treat our female soldiers is enough to make you sick, all because of thier screwed up religon.

These people have committed acts of violence against OUR while not in uniform, while fighting next to people in groups such as AQ and The Taliban. They are not in custody because they were throwing rocks, they are in custody because they had weapons such as RPG's, hand grenades, AK-47's and they were using them against OUR troops.

Did you read the NY Times article which described how we tourtured three British Aid workers for five years and got them to confess to terrorists acts which they weren't even in the country when they were committed?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9639C8B63

I did see the National Geographic show. I just didn't rely on it as my only news source.

That's the only reason why you appear to be biased when it comes to Muslim Terrorists / Combatants?

And innocent British aid workers, Innocent Australians, Germans and Italians too. Children and folks who broke curfew and ended up with their testicals hooked up to power outlets..... Don't forget those folks too cause they make up a large set of folks than the "terrorists" we know about.

[Larry]

JMS, you've now skirted two scenarios. I think what we can draw from that is while you are able to judge the actions of others and only consider the opinions of those that agree with you, you are unable to take make the difficult decision yourself (online).

He's skirted two fictional scenarios.

You're skirting real people.

But keep complaining about how lonely your imaginary world is.

[GoSkins561]

:laugh: We held the twelve year old through his 17th birthday..... I would figure after year 2-3 we would be able to tell a 12 year old from a man. Much sooner than that would be reasonable..

Which is why I said earlier we need to start taking fewer prisoners because there is a much easier solution, especially when they are throwing grenades at Our Men and Women in uniform.

:

Did you read the NY Times article which described how we tourtured three British Aid workers for five years and got them to confess to terrorists acts which they weren't even in the country when they were committed?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9639C8B63

I did see the National Geographic show. I just didn't rely on it as my only news source.

And innocent British aid workers, Innocent Australians, Germans and Italians too. Children and folks who broke curfew and ended up with their testicals hooked up to power outlets..... Don't forget those folks too cause they make up a large set of folks than the "terrorists" we know about.

Were they Muslims?

Threatening to kill someones children without laying a hand on the person or the child is not torture.

Let me guess you had a problem with putting a spider in the terrorists cell to?

[Bang]

Then Bang wouldn't you also propose taking Prisoners of War captive as "moronic" since you think the entire act of war is to kill or threaten to kill the enemy?

How about the Geneva Convention all together... Is that too rather "moronic" because it's tennants run contrary to your rather limited and misguided interpretation of what war is all about?

How about the entire US legal system, after all if you can indiscriminantly dismiss the parts of it you don't like as "Moronic", what good is it.

And Bang, The reason ( stand by for religious refference) you don't destroys the fruit trees of your enemies in war, is because some day they won't be your enemy. Some day you will want to live in peace with them again. And even in a times of war their is a chance to sow the seeds of a future peace..

Torah or Old Testement of the Bible

Deuteronomy 20: Verses 19-20

Well, damn. You should be careful, sticking your nose that high in the air then talking straight down it could cause vertigo. And we don't want you falling off your lofty perch, there.

But since you asked,

Taking prisoners of war has definite merit. For one, you can get information out of them. And to get that information out of them you can do any number of awful things, most of which I completely disagree with.

But LYING to one of them to FRIGHTEN him into giving information is not nearly so heinous as many many many other methods.

I like dealing in reality, and the absolute reality is that war is not a negotiation. It is a one sided single minded brutal attempt to subjugate the enemy by any means necessary. You bomb him, you burn him, you shoot him, you blow him limb from limb, you slaughter him in as great a number as you can until he surrenders.

It may be subject to conventions to make it more civilized, but the fact is nothing can make the act of war civilized. It is legal wholesale murder, and nothing more. No matter how anyone may sugarcoat it, try to frame it within rules or pretend it follows any sort of legal procedure whatsoever.

There is one objective. Kill enough of the enemy to make him quit. Destroy his will and ability to fight.

What else is the point of war, O' enlightened one?

Throughout history conquerors HAVE killed the sons of the vanquished, as well as any surviving soldiers of the defeated army. All the Bible quotes in the world don't change what armies have done throughout time immemorial. I certainly don't need a lesson in why we shouldn't do something I haven't advocated we do.

I never said we SHOULD kill these kids.. I said that LYING to a prisoner about it to extract information out of him is perfectly acceptable in my book.

Lying about it isn't the same as doing it. Since we're not actually committing the crimes we're threatening them with, I don't see the issue. Lying about it seems to me to be a perfectly sound interrogation method, legally practiced by every cop there is, military or civilian.

~Bang

[Destino]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8410340

The CIA and the Obama Administration continue to keep secret some of the most shocking allegations involving the spy agency's interrogation program: three deaths and several other detainees whose whereabouts could not be determined, according to a former senior intelligence official who has read the full, unredacted version

So we killed some of them now and we waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times?

[JMS]

Threatening to kill someones children without laying a hand on the person or the child is not torture.

Actually it is... Cause torture is described as inflicting physical or mental distress.....

Ah, so you are defending threatenning to kill the kids, but not defending torturing the British Aid workers for half a decade?

How enlightened of you. You do know these things all happenned under the same policy....

Let me guess you had a problem with putting a spider in the terrorists cell to?

As it turns out I do. Because as it turns out the guy who we confined in a small box and put insects into the box with him was a mentally ill dude who didn't know anything.

Abu_Zubaydah had three personalities, and wasn't the #3 in charge of Al Quada like the Bush administration claimed. He was a foot soldier who was clueless.

We tortured a mentally ill dude and we got nothing from it.... Torture cause we first waterboarded him 80 times before we went to the bug box.

Indefensible cause the interogators themselves told the higher ups in the cia that he didn't know anything and the CIA officials told them to continue waterboarding him 60 more times.... then they flew down to watch; Then we went to the Bug box...

So yeah I would say torturing mentally ill people who know nothing is a bad idea. I would also say mispresenting them as #3 guy in charge of Al Quada is also a bad idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah

[jkypoo]

I'll say it again: Posters keep calling these suspects "terrorists" and "criminals." They are detainees. They have been found guilty of nothing. Charged with nothing. Intelligence suggests they might have useful information, which somehow allows for the illegal circumvention of US law and UN regulation. But intelligence can also be wrong, and a lot of times is.

[GoSkins561]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8410340

We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times?

Good do it 500 more times, what an piece of :poop: that guy is.

[Bang]

I'll say it again: Posters keep calling these suspects "terrorists" and "criminals." They are detainees. They have been found guilty of nothing. Charged with nothing. Intelligence suggests they might have useful information, which somehow allows for the illegal circumvention of US law and UN regulation. But intelligence can also be wrong, and a lot of times is.

True, and I'll take this opportunity to be clear that lying to a detainee is also something the cops will do with a "person of interest" before they ever charge him with anything.

~Bang

[helptheSKINS]

:laugh: We held the twelve year old through his 17th birthday..... I would figure after year 2-3 years we would be able to tell a 12 year old from a man. Much sooner than that would be reasonable.

Oh and it's not like we only had one child in custody at GITMO, either. We had quite a few, google child detanee and amnesty international if you are interested.

Did you read the NY Times article which described how we tourtured three British Aid workers for five years and got them to confess to terrorists acts which they weren't even in the country when they were committed?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9639C8B63

I did see the National Geographic show. I just didn't rely on it as my only news source.

And innocent British aid workers, Innocent Australians, Germans and Italians too. Children and folks who broke curfew and ended up with their testicals hooked up to power outlets..... Don't forget those folks too cause they make up a large set of folks than the "terrorists" we know about.

As I said before, you pic and choose based on what works for your argument. You make up numbers like "90-95% are innocent" with no proof.

You are 100% skirting the simple scenario because it in a very small way puts you in the position of the soldiers and interrogators that actually have to deal with those scenarios.

You should write an article for the NY Times about the military picking up 90-95% random people so they can torture them. Trust me, they'll run it then amnesty international can link it to their website. After there's a terror attack you can also write an article about the military/CIA not doing enough to protect the country. They'll run that one too!

[Destino]

True, and I'll take this opportunity to be clear that lying to a detainee is also something the cops will do with a "person of interest" before they ever charge him with anything.

~Bang

granted they don't run a power drill next to their head and lie about their intent on using it on them.

[JMS]

Well, damn. You should be careful, sticking your nose that high in the air then talking straight down it could cause vertigo. And we don't want you falling off your lofty perch, there.

I did not call your argument "moronic" all I did was clarify the position which you called "moronic".... I also disagreed strongly with your narrow definition of the object of war.

But since you asked,

Taking prisoners of war has definite merit. For one, you can get information out of them. And to get that information out of them you can do any number of awful things, most of which I completely disagree with.

But LYING to one of them to FRIGHTEN him into giving information is not nearly so heinous as many many many other methods.

I like dealing in reality, and the absolute reality is that war is not a negotiation. It is a one sided single minded brutal attempt to subjugate the enemy by any means necessary. You bomb him, you burn him, you shoot him, you slaughter him in as great a number as you can until he surrenders.

Keep going you are on a roll..... Why stop after he surrenders? Why not keep killing them even then? We do. That's what you are defending. 117 deaths in US custody from 2003-2005, 43 ruled homicide.

It may be subject to conventions to make it more civilized, but the fact is nothing can make the act of war civilized. It is legal wholesale murder, and nothing more. No matter how anyone may sugarcoat it, try to frame it within rules or pretend it follows any sort of legal procedure whatsoever.

There is one objective. Kill enough of the enemy to make him quit. Destroy his will and ability to fight.

What else is the point of war, O' enlightened one?

In Vietnam we kept body counts. We killed 200 VC for every American lost, and we still lost the war. In Iraq we didn't keep body counts. Why? cause the object of war turned out not to be to kill your enemy. The object of war is to win.

It didn't help the Nazi's when they mass murdered our troops during the battle of the bulge in the Ardennes offensive. Even though they killed a lot of soldiers (350). They also motivated all the ones left living...

Just like it doesn't help us to be seen pulling the toenails waterboarding and making naked pyramids out of Moslems ( most of them innocent) because it has not worked to aid us with information and has vastly increased the recruiting power and strength of our enemy.

Seems counter productive doesn't it, that killing our enemies, making naked pyramids out of them, putting their testicals in light sockets, and threatenning the lives of their innocent children would actually piss off arabs who otherwise were on the fense in this conflict.

I never said we SHOULD kill these kids.. I said that LYING to a prisoner about it to extract information out of him is perfectly acceptable in my book.

Because the greatest most powerful nation on earth threatenning the lives of Innocent kids makes us more secure, more sympathetic, and draws a clear deliniation between us and our enemies?

Lying about it isn't the same as doing it.

We only know the tip of the toenail of what we've done. We've violated a lot of laws, moral and legal; I have no doubt that threatenning to murder children isn't among the top ten. It is however heinous and reflects the kinds of morals we hand minding the shop under Bush. It reflects on all Americans in the eyes of the world, and how the world sees us does have direct meaning with regards to wining this war and our nations security.

~Bang

whiz!!...

[jkypoo]

True, and I'll take this opportunity to be clear that lying to a detainee is also something the cops will do with a "person of interest" before they ever charge him with anything.

~Bang

Yes, but in such a scenario where police arrest and hold someone as a "person of interest," that person still has the legal right to an attorney and needs to be charged with a crime within a certain time frame or otherwise released from custody. They cannot be held indefinitely.

These "detainees" are called as such in order to circumvent the protocol established for prisoners, prisoners of war, and war criminals, which are all guaranteed certain protections and due processes by US law and UN regulation. In essence, it is a circumvention of civil liberties. And I'll quote Franklin once again: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[JMS]

granted they don't run a power drill next to their head and lie about their intent on using it on them.

The Cops don't threaten to pop your kids either if you don't confess.

[JMS]

As I said before, you pic and choose based on what works for your argument. You make up numbers like "90-95% are innocent" with no proof.

I was actually quoting Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski the former commander of Abu Ghraib, who used those numbers to describe Abu Grab detanees....

That means that a huge percentage of people who were in the prison had no reason to be there.

That is unfortunately true. So, say, generally 90 percent of the security detainees being held at Abu Ghraib were just innocent, had no information at all.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/11/10/karpinski/index.html

We don't know how many folks have been detained outside Iraq and Afghanistan in camps like Gitmo. The numbers have been estimated from 60,000 up to more than 120,000. We know the capacity at all the known camps is pretty limited so if people on that scale were actually detained, the 90-95% innocent numbers Karpinski quotes on Abu Grab detanee's would seem to be realistic.

You should write an article for the NY Times about the military picking up 90-95% random people so they can torture them. Trust me, they'll run it then amnesty international can link it to their website. After there's a terror attack you can also write an article about the military/CIA not doing enough to protect the country. They'll run that one too!

I don't have too the NY Times and Washington Post have already published the numbers on Abu Grab when the Bush Administration released 95% of the detainees after the abuse pictures broke.

[helptheSKINS]

I was actually quoting Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski the former commander of Abu Ghraib, who used those numbers to describe Abu Grab detanees....

We don't know how many folks have been detained outside Iraq and Afghanistan in camps like Gitmo. The numbers have been estimated from 60,000 up to more than 120,000. We know the capacity at all the known camps is pretty limited so if people on that scale were actually detained, the 90-95% innocent numbers Karpinski quotes on Abu Grab detanee's would seem to be realistic.

I don't have too the NY Times and Washington Post have already published the numbers on Abu Grab when the Bush Administration released 95% of the detainees after the abuse pictures broke.

Any word on how many of those have received enhanced interrogation. That is what were were talking about correct? Again, you continue to judge without having any idea under what circumstances they were picked up or for the small percentage that received enhanced interrogation.

Still waiting for your answer to one of the two simple scenarios I gave you. All you need to do is make a decision on the internet that the agents have to make in real life.

[Bang]

All right, fair enough fellas. Y'all make enough quality points that my admittedly B+W argument isn't going to hold up. Never let it be said that I don't know enough about war to know when I'm licked.

~Bang

[Larry]

As I said before, you pic and choose based on what works for your argument. You make up numbers like "90-95% are innocent" with no proof.

He's provided the source for his claims. Several times.

You respond by pulling fiction out of your Philly.

[JMS]

Any word on how many of those have received enhanced interrogation. That is what were were talking about correct? Again, you continue to judge without having any idea under what circumstances they were picked up or for the small percentage that received enhanced interrogation.

Again, and unfortunately to your articulately crafted response. These were the Abu Grab detainees the folks who treated the world with hundreds of pictures of naked pyramids, hooded human electrical circuits, Guard Dogs being set to attack chained imobilized naked detainees. We literally have hundreds of peaces of photographic evidence of unique abuses conducted on this population of 90% innocent folks.

I think the Obama administration has hundreds or thousand of more pictures of abuse which they recently decided not to release to the public, not sure if all of those were Abu Grab or just some of them.

[JMS]

All right, fair enough fellas. Y'all make enough quality points that my admittedly B+W argument isn't going to hold up. Never let it be said that I don't know enough about war to know when I'm licked.

~Bang

No hard feelings, we can agree to meet and disagree civily on other subjects?

That nose crack was very hurtful. Think of Karl Maulden and add another lobe.

[Bang]

No hard feelings, we can agree to meet and disagree civily on other subjects?

That nose crack was very hurtful. Think of Karl Maulden and add another lobe.

Of course there's no hard feelings. Based on the posts I read after my last response, there was no way that I was going to be able to argue against it without forcing myself to be very obtuse. I took a position that didn't allow for any variable information beyond straight up POWs and extraction tactics used therein. I know when I'm wrong, even if it has to be pointed out to me :cool2:

~Bang

[skinfan133]

The problem with your argument is you don't mention the cases in which enhanced interrogation has directly lead to foiled terrorist attacks. It's odd that you and others dismiss that information but cut and paste articles supporting your argument. You also mention that we let them go because we have no evidence. Not every detainee was subjected to enhanced interrogation, those with deep, proven ties were. In fact, very few are.

You tried sliding by my "desperate parent" example because you know you can't answer it without contradicting your argument. A parent is responsible for keeping his child from predators, the CIA/Military is responsible for keeping US citizens safe from predators.

Here's an easier one for you: A terrorist plot that will take place within days has been outed and the CIA has one person in custody that likely knows the details (time and place).

Option A: You have asked the terrorist to give up the info but he won't budge. Time is getting short. Time to threaten his family, fake killing another terrorist, waterboard in order to get an answer. Knowing the information may not be accurate but doing nothing will definitely lead to Americans dying.

Option B: Continue to ask the terrorist to give up the information and nothing more.

Are you Jack Bauer or Nancy Pelosi?

your logical fallacy is that you mistakenly believe that such foiled attacks couldn't have been foiled without torture. I would strongly argue that similar results could and would be achieved using traditional interrogation techniques. quite frankly you are insulting the people in the Military and intelligence field in that you're saying they do such a piss poor job at interrogating that they have to revert to barbaric an un-American behavior to achieve the results they want.

BULL ****

[Smoot Point Really]

Was the interrogator threatening an innocent child?

No, the interrogator wasn't threatening a child... I've answered this repeatedly.

[Larry]

No, the interrogator wasn't threatening a child... I've answered this repeatedly.

Can you explain to me what definition you're using, in which threatening to kill a child isn't threatening a child?

Something a bit clearer than "it isn't"?