Trump reverses position on torture, targeting civilians

[uptheos]

As a Brit I'd love to see Trump become president, carry out his promises and let's see if it can be done.

I think a lot of Americans like the wall idea, I certainly like his Muslim idea, the guys got balls, I hope.

[stillbornagain]

This is from another thread, but more on topic here:

People getting bent out of shape about war crimes should perhaps consider how many ISIS war criminals have been tried by the Hague.

Meanwhile people are being raped, tortured and murdered on a daily basis by ISIS. The Geneva convention has completely failed to protect innocent people there.

But hey - the West cant possibly waterboard someone. That wouldnt be nice.

Talk about tying your own hands behind your back.

So the reason we should be doing it is because they're behaving like barbarians and why should they have all the fun?

[Ulysses G.]

I worked in the ME for a number of years and saw the results of interrogations using torture. People will almost always confess to anything. The information and confessions were generally useless.

One guy confessed under torture to a string of sexual offenses. He was executed and the following day the offenses started again with the same MO. He was not the perpetrator.

I had a driver who was arrested and accused of spying for an opposing political party. He was tortured, confessed and was within hours of being hung when I arrived in the town where he was detained and explained that he was a driver. He was released. He wasn't even the the person they thought he was.

Extracting information is always going to be a tricky business, but information gotten from torture is about the most unreliable I've ever come across.

Did you see trained Western intelligence agents using it with techniques to detect false confessions? It is a lot different than some thug beating someone with a baseball bat,

[arjunadawn]

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works. This is why when it will be used or not should be anyone's guess, a prerogative of state or agent, and relative to the situation. But when we begin the capture with the foreknowledge that things will never get hard, we abuse our own tools. (The sick byproduct of this reality is why they mostly just kill them now).

We all know every person will talk, it is all a matter of time. Every person who has information has this information variously valuable relative to time or specificity. It is usually time. Every one knows certain information is throw away information to lessen the torture, and buy time. Why buy time? Because in buying time time sensitive information loses its value; tactical information depreciates quickly. Specific info might be useful, but is compromised with no context, no time. Every soldier, airmen, etc. can be made to talk and so they throw away information infrequently (while interrogated/tortured) as necessary to honor their nation and stay alive. But when you take the entire playbook from the enemies of the US they know as soon as they arrive they can stall for time and specificity. They know they can just remain silent and lawyer up. They know that they will not be compelled to fit pieces of a puzzle. They only need to wait out tough talk, lights, cold, bread, etc. Just wait. This is not a tool of state, this is a restriction of reason.

[crowbait]

The use of torture is illegal by international law. It's use by a nation state is tantamount to a war crime. Beside that, the country whose people you use torture on are going to hate you really badly and are therefore going to seek revenge, thus perpetuating the terrorism. The only two ways out of this are genocide or trying to reach an agreement. How likely is that while your torturing their children?

In the meantime, you grow more monstrous and more isolated as a nation. But then, the good ole US of A doesn't need to give a damn about world opinion, does it?

[Ulysses G.]

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works.

Of course. You realize this because of your special forces experience. If it did not work on a regular basis, NO ONE would be using it. I am not a proponent except in very desperate circumstances, but the war on terror is nothing like traditional combat. Islamic terrorists target innocents on purpose and as many victims as possible.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[lostboy]

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works. This is why when it will be used or not should be anyone's guess, a prerogative of state or agent, and relative to the situation. But when we begin the capture with the foreknowledge that things will never get hard, we abuse our own tools. (The sick byproduct of this reality is why they mostly just kill them now).

We all know every person will talk, it is all a matter of time. Every person who has information has this information variously valuable relative to time or specificity. It is usually time. Every one knows certain information is throw away information to lessen the torture, and buy time. Why buy time? Because in buying time time sensitive information loses its value; tactical information depreciates quickly. Specific info might be useful, but is compromised with no context, no time. Every soldier, airmen, etc. can be made to talk and so they throw away information infrequently (while interrogated/tortured) as necessary to honor their nation and stay alive. But when you take the entire playbook from the enemies of the US they know as soon as they arrive they can stall for time and specificity. They know they can just remain silent and lawyer up. They know that they will not be compelled to fit pieces of a puzzle. They only need to wait out tough talk, lights, cold, bread, etc. Just wait. This is not a tool of state, this is a restriction of reason.

I do not argue the efficacy of torture. However, just because a thing can be done or is being done, does not mean that it should be done. To me, this is an issue of morality. As a secular humanist, there cannot be morality for me without reason. You argue for the application of reason to immorality. I do not believe that argument can stand if you believe that the essence of humanism is free will.

Your argument follows Nietzsche's concept of Will to Power which argues that the exploitation of the sentimental weaknesses of equality among people is essential for society's development. In his first essay in 'On the Genealogy of Morality' http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogy1.htm, he presents his concept of Master-Slave morality, where slave morality values kindness, humility and sympathy while master morality pride, strength and nobility, values that seem to be prized by the Right. I cannot argue that your defence of torture is immoral since Nietzsche further proposes a moral nihilism that states that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. However, if you take the basis of morality as being reason and reason argues that free will forms the basis of the sovereignty of a person, then I think your defence of torture is indefensible and intrinsically immoral.

Fortunately, there are laws that support my view and the views of many others and again, I look forward to the day that all those involved in the use of torture and other war crimes are held to account.

[lostboy]

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works.

Of course. You realize this because of your special forces experience. If it did not work on a regular basis, NO ONE would be using it. I am not a proponent except in very desperate circumstances, but the war on terror is nothing like traditional combat. Islamic terrorists target innocents on purpose and as many victims as possible.

The War on Terror does not exist. It never did. It is a fictional construct designed to allow the US to implement foreign and domestic policies that maintain the military-industrial complex and its control over channels of power. It is not like other wars because it is not a war. It is a manufactured State of Fear. Consequently, it will never end unless it adopts genocide as a solution.

[Ulysses G.]

I do not argue the efficacy of torture. However, just because a thing can be done or is being done, does not mean that it should be done. To me, this is an issue of morality.

I agree. Torture should only be used in very special circumstances, but don't have a lot of problems with using it on certified terrorists to save large numbers of innocent lives. To me, it would be immoral NOT to use it in certain cases. Edited March 7, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Linzz]

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works. This is why when it will be used or not should be anyone's guess, a prerogative of state or agent, and relative to the situation. But when we begin the capture with the foreknowledge that things will never get hard, we abuse our own tools. (The sick byproduct of this reality is why they mostly just kill them now).

We all know every person will talk, it is all a matter of time. Every person who has information has this information variously valuable relative to time or specificity. It is usually time. Every one knows certain information is throw away information to lessen the torture, and buy time. Why buy time? Because in buying time time sensitive information loses its value; tactical information depreciates quickly. Specific info might be useful, but is compromised with no context, no time. Every soldier, airmen, etc. can be made to talk and so they throw away information infrequently (while interrogated/tortured) as necessary to honor their nation and stay alive. But when you take the entire playbook from the enemies of the US they know as soon as they arrive they can stall for time and specificity. They know they can just remain silent and lawyer up. They know that they will not be compelled to fit pieces of a puzzle. They only need to wait out tough talk, lights, cold, bread, etc. Just wait. This is not a tool of state, this is a restriction of reason.

I do not argue the efficacy of torture. However, just because a thing can be done or is being done, does not mean that it should be done. To me, this is an issue of morality. As a secular humanist, there cannot be morality for me without reason. You argue for the application of reason to immorality. I do not believe that argument can stand if you believe that the essence of humanism is free will.

Your argument follows Nietzsche's concept of Will to Power which argues that the exploitation of the sentimental weaknesses of equality among people is essential for society's development. In his first essay in 'On the Genealogy of Morality' http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogy1.htm, he presents his concept of Master-Slave morality, where slave morality values kindness, humility and sympathy while master morality pride, strength and nobility, values that seem to be prized by the Right. I cannot argue that your defence of torture is immoral since Nietzsche further proposes a moral nihilism that states that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. However, if you take the basis of morality as being reason and reason argues that free will forms the basis of the sovereignty of a person, then I think your defence of torture is indefensible and intrinsically immoral.

Fortunately, there are laws that support my view and the views of many others and again, I look forward to the day that all those involved in the use of torture and other war crimes are held to account.

Unfortunately in the heat of war this morality is lost and not even considered in the expediency. The necessity to save lives leads to moral justification. War is anarchy.

[boomerangutang]

I'll say it again; If Trump were prez, each morning either he or the WH press sec. would have to spin/deny what he said the day/week before. Trump not only doesn't know how government works, he's out to lunch re; regulations, laws, protocol and common decency. All in all, he's as presidential as Nick Nolte on quaaludes.

[lannarebirth]

If Trump were prez, each morning either he or the WH press sec. would have to spin/deny what he said the day/week before.

You mean like every other president or politician?

[Publicus]

Obama (while he is President) has joined Romney is saying Trump will not be President. So if the people want to elect an outsider that career politicians minders and masters do not like and he is prevented from running, then Stalin is right: It isn't the people who decide anything, it's the vote counters who decide everything, so your vote means nothing.

It's not about left or right wingnuttia, or how much you dislike any candidate, it's corruption and money in politics that should sound the alarm.

People who continually quote Stalin and Mussolini are the ones who raise red flags.

As with the rightwhingers, the conservative hard right find it hard to criticise Trump (Cruz too) while readily hitting President Obama, HR Clinton and now Mitt Romney. The conservative hard right ignores Rubio and Kasich while also throwing the net over supporters of Clinton and President Obama. Add Romney because the conservative hard right hits the center rather than the extremes.

The conservative hard right does mildly find polite things to say about Bernie Sanders but in their final analysis, whether the conservative hard right says it will vote for him or not, it holds its nose on Bernie Sanders while having its thumb in its mouth.

The extremes running for Potus meanwhile get a free pass from the conservative hard right in the vital matter of USA war crimes that the extremist candidates on the Republican right favor and advocate with enthusiasm. Until some of the R candidates suddenly pull their foot out of their mouth in the matter.

The extremist Republican candidates had to pull their foot out of their mouth when it was pointed out by experts to include generals and admirals that US military personnel are obligated and required under the Constitution and their oath of service to refuse to obey unlawful and/or unconstitutional orders. This is true whether the orders originate from civilian officials of the Department of Defense, the White House, or military officers of the Pentagon and theater commands across the globe.

There are a couple of extremist lunatics running for the office of Potus on the Republican side. Few if any on the right criticise them while instead attacking the other side.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Publicus

[Linzz]

Obama (while he is President) has joined Romney is saying Trump will not be President. So if the people want to elect an outsider that career politicians minders and masters do not like and he is prevented from running, then Stalin is right: It isn't the people who decide anything, it's the vote counters who decide everything, so your vote means nothing.

It's not about left or right wingnuttia, or how much you dislike any candidate, it's corruption and money in politics that should sound the alarm.

People who continually quote Stalin and Mussolini are the ones who raise red flags.

As with the rightwhingers, the conservative hard right find it hard to criticise Trump (Cruz too) while readily hitting President Obama, HR Clinton and now Mitt Romney. The conservative hard right ignores Rubio and Kasich while also throwing the net over supporters of Clinton and President Obama. Add Romney because the conservative hard right hits the center rather than the extremes.

The conservative hard right does mildly find polite things to say about Bernie Sanders but in their final analysis, whether the conservative hard right says it will vote for him or not, it holds its nose on Bernie Sanders while having its thumb in its mouth.

The extremes running for Potus meanwhile get a free pass from the conservative hard right in the vital matter of USA war crimes that the extremist candidates on the Republican right favor and advocate with enthusiasm. Until some of the R candidates suddenly pull their foot out of their mouth in the matter.

The extremist Republican candidates had to pull their foot out of their mouth when it was pointed out by experts to include generals and admirals that US military personnel are obligated and required under the Constitution and their oath of service to refuse to obey unlawful and/or unconstitutional orders. This is true whether the orders originate from civilian officials of the Department of Defense, the White House, or military officers of the Pentagon and theater commands across the globe.

There are a couple of extremist lunatics running for the office of Potus on the Republican side. Few if any on the right criticise them while instead attacking the other side.

I thought it was only Stalin who raised a red flag.

You need to calm down Pub, Trump will have to if he reaches office, then what will you talk about?

[Publicus]

The analysis about Trump not getting there is on the record here (as elsewhere) and it is a much shared analysis by historians among others to include diplomats, all of which are mainstream to include myself.

Others locally and globally are alarmed about Trump as should be expected.

Trump's whacked out statements about committing war crimes jeopardises the US military personnel presently in their global deployments as US military act and sleep in the field next to Muslim allies and partners in the fight. It jeopardises our military missions everywhere.

US military generals and admirals are concerned they may have to invoke their Constitutional duty and to honor their oath of service by disobeying a commander in chief who orders them to commit war crimes.

Yet the realistic analysis from within the United States, and which comes from American mainstream culture, political history, socio-economics, elections and the like is that Trump is a goner. Presently and going forward.

Trump fanboyz to include everyone from conservative hard right political types who hem haw and hedge, all the way out to the right whingenuts, are either positive about Trump or are wildly excited about Trump. Neither group has criticised Trump directly or significantly while simultaneously each hits or bashes Clinton and her supporters regularly and consistently. Regardless, based in an analysis of Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 it becomes unmistakable Trump will fail in his Forced March trooping through the vast and diverse moderate and centrist electorate.

False alarm but alarm exists and it is justifiable. It also is a part of the equation which motivates the voters out to ensure Trump gets the thump at the polls. Hide and watch.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Publicus

[lannarebirth]

The analysis about Trump not getting there is on the record here (as elsewhere) and it is a much shared analysis by historians among others to include diplomats, all of which are mainstream to include myself.

Others locally and globally are alarmed about Trump as should be expected.

Trump's whacked out statements about committing war crimes jeopardises the US military personnel presently in their global deployments as US military act and sleep in the field next to Muslim allies and partners in the fight. It jeopardises our military missions everywhere.

US military generals and admirals are concerned they may have to invoke their Constitutional duty and to honor their oath of service by disobeying a commander in chief who orders them to commit war crimes.

Yet the realistic analysis from within the United States, and which comes from American mainstream culture, political history, socio-economics, elections and the like is that Trump is a goner. Presently and going forward.

Trump fanboyz to include everyone from conservative hard right political types who hem haw and hedge, all the way out to the right whingenuts, are either positive about Trump or are wildly excited about Trump. Neither group has criticised Trump directly or significantly while simultaneously each hits or bashes Clinton and her supporters regularly and consistently. Regardless, based in an analysis of Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 it becomes unmistakable Trump will fail in his Forced March trooping through the vast and diverse moderate and centrist electorate.

False alarm but alarm exists and it is justifiable. It also is a part of the equation which motivates the voters out to ensure Trump gets the thump at the polls. Hide and watch.

Personally, I think Trump is a mania. And like all manias they will reach a point whereby all support collapses. That doesn't mean for a second, I believe any of that shit you've just spouted.

You talk about criticizing Trump, but since you're so clearly a pundit, why wouldn't you spend the bulk of your energies in exalting in the capabilities of the candidate you support ( if only by criticizing other candidates).

[keemapoot]

^I've known lots of campaign staffers, from Campaign Managers on down. Uniformly they were always working me, ultimately for money - a large contribution or something. The ones with longevity all perfectly memorize the party line, and are usually articulate, if not verbose people.

They do however, lose perspective and neutrality if they stay with the same type of campaigns too long.

[Publicus]

^I've known lots of campaign staffers, from Campaign Managers on down. Uniformly they were always working me, ultimately for money - a large contribution or something. The ones with longevity all perfectly memorize the party line, and are usually articulate, if not verbose people.

They do however, lose perspective and neutrality if they stay with the same type of campaigns too long.

At least Trump backed off a hard and fast position he took on this vital national security issue.

Trump's wild and radical statements about these critical matters endangered our troops in their deployments serving alongside Muslims of allied or partnered countries. Our soldiers and Muslims fight together, eat together, sleep together, so it is vital the US maintain a viable and strong working relationship with their governments and societies.

And we certainly do not want to place our highest military commanders and their troops all the way through the ranks with being confronted by unlawful, unconstitutional, commands from the White House to commit war crimes. It is a matter of the armed forces of the United States honoring both the Constitution they swore to defend and the oath that binds them to follow only lawful orders issued by a superior officer.

Surely even a jaded lawyer can see, recognise, comprehend and support the severe criticism of Donald Trump and his fellow lunatic supporters in these respects.

Y'know, looking at the Constitution, maybe Donald Trump is indeed a fascist by the standards of US history, culture, society, politics and economics.

[Linzz]

The analysis about Trump not getting there is on the record here (as elsewhere) and it is a much shared analysis by historians among others to include diplomats, all of which are mainstream to include myself.

Others locally and globally are alarmed about Trump as should be expected.

Trump's whacked out statements about committing war crimes jeopardises the US military personnel presently in their global deployments as US military act and sleep in the field next to Muslim allies and partners in the fight. It jeopardises our military missions everywhere.

US military generals and admirals are concerned they may have to invoke their Constitutional duty and to honor their oath of service by disobeying a commander in chief who orders them to commit war crimes.

Yet the realistic analysis from within the United States, and which comes from American mainstream culture, political history, socio-economics, elections and the like is that Trump is a goner. Presently and going forward.

Trump fanboyz to include everyone from conservative hard right political types who hem haw and hedge, all the way out to the right whingenuts, are either positive about Trump or are wildly excited about Trump. Neither group has criticised Trump directly or significantly while simultaneously each hits or bashes Clinton and her supporters regularly and consistently. Regardless, based in an analysis of Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 it becomes unmistakable Trump will fail in his Forced March trooping through the vast and diverse moderate and centrist electorate.

False alarm but alarm exists and it is justifiable. It also is a part of the equation which motivates the voters out to ensure Trump gets the thump at the polls. Hide and watch.

More predictions from the meteorologist in denial. Your analysis is shared by diplomats and historians including yourself. Why does that sound pompous, do they consult you?

[Publicus]

The analysis about Trump not getting there is on the record here (as elsewhere) and it is a much shared analysis by historians among others to include diplomats, all of which are mainstream to include myself.

Others locally and globally are alarmed about Trump as should be expected.

Trump's whacked out statements about committing war crimes jeopardises the US military personnel presently in their global deployments as US military act and sleep in the field next to Muslim allies and partners in the fight. It jeopardises our military missions everywhere.

US military generals and admirals are concerned they may have to invoke their Constitutional duty and to honor their oath of service by disobeying a commander in chief who orders them to commit war crimes.

Yet the realistic analysis from within the United States, and which comes from American mainstream culture, political history, socio-economics, elections and the like is that Trump is a goner. Presently and going forward.

Trump fanboyz to include everyone from conservative hard right political types who hem haw and hedge, all the way out to the right whingenuts, are either positive about Trump or are wildly excited about Trump. Neither group has criticised Trump directly or significantly while simultaneously each hits or bashes Clinton and her supporters regularly and consistently. Regardless, based in an analysis of Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 it becomes unmistakable Trump will fail in his Forced March trooping through the vast and diverse moderate and centrist electorate.

False alarm but alarm exists and it is justifiable. It also is a part of the equation which motivates the voters out to ensure Trump gets the thump at the polls. Hide and watch.

More predictions from the meteorologist in denial. Your analysis is shared by diplomats and historians including yourself. Why does that sound pompous, do they consult you?

Let's try it again in a more basic way.

In common with.

Keep the line moving plse thx.

[Scott]

I worked in the ME for a number of years and saw the results of interrogations using torture. People will almost always confess to anything. The information and confessions were generally useless.

One guy confessed under torture to a string of sexual offenses. He was executed and the following day the offenses started again with the same MO. He was not the perpetrator.

I had a driver who was arrested and accused of spying for an opposing political party. He was tortured, confessed and was within hours of being hung when I arrived in the town where he was detained and explained that he was a driver. He was released. He wasn't even the the person they thought he was.

Extracting information is always going to be a tricky business, but information gotten from torture is about the most unreliable I've ever come across.

Did you see trained Western intelligence agents using it with techniques to detect false confessions? It is a lot different than some thug beating someone with a baseball bat,

As a matter of fact I have sat in on Western intelligence agents interrogating prisoners. Have you? They weren't using torture, but their methods were quite effective.

The Iraqi interrogators were also trained interrogators. They were trained by Saddam and when it comes to torture he knew what he was doing. No baseball bats used.

But when it comes to torture a thug is a thug regardless of which side they are on.

[boomerangutang]

One thing the US and others do with prisoners of war in the M.East, is: lump them all together. They get 3 meals a day, TV, exercise yard, health & dental check-ups. What happens is; the most radical Islamist Western-haters become the most influential. Every prisoner becomes hyper-radicalized. Then the US let them out. It's like breeding disease-laden people, and then releasing them to the general public. They should be in isolated cells with no means of communication.

[umbanda]

Trump is a con artist, very smart one. He will change positions many more times, just to reach new supporters. He never offered any real solution to the US and World issues in terrorism and war. The Homeland security tax is a scam, because no country can stop terrorism. There are so many ways to " invade" a country, cross borders, infiltrate Governments, that it is not possible to stop somebody to do it, specially a suicide bomber. I am not a terrorist but I know how. I am Mexican/American. Imagine a real terrorist, with a lot of money, and motivation? Only a country in War, under Martial Law, a Police State, like East Germany after WW2, may be willing to control it someway, but It is not the case of the United States...yet....only after Trump becomes President.

The only way to avoid terrorism, infiltration, illegal immigration, crime, violence, etc, it is ending with MOTIVATION.....Building walls is not the way to do it, killing "enemies" or torturing them is not the way to do it, creating misery in other countries is not the way to do it, showing how to "succeed" in life with scams, bankruptcies, and greed, it is not the way to do it. Not on an ideal world.

[Jingthing]

I think all politicians think voters are stupid to some degree. Trump is an extreme case where he does nothing to hide it. Clinton is more in the normal range. Sanders is different. He acts like voters are smarter than they are.