Trump faces hurdles to reinstating waterboarding

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, bubblewrap said:

 

What Trump says and what he does are two totally different things.

In other words, even when he lies, you believe in the hidden Trump, the true Trump, the Trump who was punished with great wealth on account of our sins. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

When it's necessary, like after the next mass-terrorism attack, it will be right back on the table, no matter what McCain has to say.

 

I can get (if not wholly agree) of the relevance before an attack.

Why would it be necessary after an attack?

 

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, bubblewrap said:

 

Imagine if your mum, dad, sister, brother, daughter or son were murdered by a terrorist, think Boston and 9/11, do you think that you might reconsider your current position?

 

By the way, I sincerely hope that never befalls your family.

That's what we want. Angry, vengeful people making decisions.  Or pandering to angry, vengeful people. That always works out well. LIke it did in Bush's Iraq war.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I suppose I still don't understand it.

 

Its supposed to mimick the fear you are drowning but not really drown you?

 

 

 

Technically, there is no difference. You drown. The difference being that under normal circumstances, there's no one there to save you. Under "enhanced interrogation" (aka torture) the interrogator can. Your choice. It does not "mimic" the fear, there's no difference. People do not think straight when breathing water. People usually cannot hold on to the notion that it's "fake". Perhaps for a bit, then fear and panic take over. Not that this makes for grade A intel. If the interrogator over does it, there can be permanent physical damage, even death.

 

 

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, bubblewrap said:

 

Imagine if your mum, dad, sister, brother, daughter or son were murdered by a terrorist, think Boston and 9/11, do you think that you might reconsider your current position?

 

By the way, I sincerely hope that never befalls your family.

 

People directly involved or effected by such situations are rarely placed in a such a position. And for good reasons. Posters shouldn't take actions movies as reality.

[OMGImInPattaya]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I can get (if not wholly agree) of the relevance before an attack.

Why would it be necessary after an attack?

 

Acomplices...future attacks.

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

People directly involved or effected by such situations are rarely placed in a such a position. And for good reasons. Posters shouldn't take actions movies as reality.

 

Haven't you ever watched "24" ?

 

What if that happened to you?

[Morch]

Just now, OMGImInPattaya said:

Acomplices...future attacks.

 

Unless there's reason to believe another attack is imminent, then wrong. Even those advocating leaving the option of waterboarding and other means of torture do not claim that these result in the most reliable information. Such details as you described are better extracted by other methods.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Haven't you ever watched "24" ?

 

What if that happened to you?

 

I have, I just don't take any bit of entertainment as an accurate reflection of reality.  If I was an actor in such a series, I will probably do the same.

[ClutchClark]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Technically, there is no difference. You drown. The difference being that under normal circumstances, there's no one there to save you. Under "enhanced interrogation" (aka torture) the interrogator can. Your choice. It does not "mimic" the fear, there's no difference. People do not think straight when breathing water. People usually cannot hold on to the notion that it's "fake". Perhaps for a bit, then fear and panic take over. Not that this makes for grade A intel. If the interrogator over does it, there can be permanent physical damage, even death.

 

 

 

Thanks for details.

 

You did mention "usually cannot hold onto the notion that its 'fake'". 

 

The only thing that makes it "fake" is the fact that someone is there to bring you back? Is the process of saving the person identical to an actual drowning victim then? Clear passageway and administer CPR?

[bubblewrap]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Such details as you described are better extracted by other methods.

 

Oh Jeremy Corbyn territory.  Invite IS for a cup of tea?

 

What would you suggest as other methods?

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Unless there's reason to believe another attack is imminent, then wrong. Even those advocating leaving the option of waterboarding and other means of torture do not claim that these result in the most reliable information. Such details as you described are better extracted by other methods.

I never claimed it was the best...only one method among many for extracting information.

[A1Str8]

This man is so pathetic and uneducated. 

The reality is that there's no need to torture others including waterboarding because it is done to so called terrorists.

But since there's no such thing as terrorists but it is rather an invention of the richest families that own the United States and use people like Donald as mere puppets, to start wars and put fear in people.. There's really no need for such measures.

And why would the US worry about outside threats? It is causing it's own downfall. No intervention by any outside source is necessary. 

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Thanks for details.

 

You did mention "usually cannot hold onto the notion that its 'fake'". 

 

The only thing that makes it "fake" is the fact that someone is there to bring you back? Is the process of saving the person identical to an actual drowning victim then? Clear passageway and administer CPR?

 

Fake as in that the situation is contrived. To put it less eloquently, when someone's head is held down in a toilet, the difference between it being a fake or real drowning is academic. Not what most people have in mind during the process.

 

Waterboarding is (theoretically) a controlled situation. The interrogator knows how much pressure can be applied, with subjects breaking way before the actual limit is reached. There's usually no need for CPR etc. as each round will be stopped before that's needed. Again, I don't think that physically there's a difference. Probably even worse, as the experience is shortly repeated.

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, bubblewrap said:

 

Oh Jeremy Corbyn territory.  Invite IS for a cup of tea?

 

What would you suggest as other methods?

 

Not at all. There are plenty of means to apply pressure without resorting to physical torture. There no particular need for me to detail them all, some could be found on the clips discussed above, or by a simple search of the net. If that's not good enough, consider the quote by Mattis regarding cigarettes and beers.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I never claimed it was the best...only one method among many for extracting information.

 

 

[bubblewrap]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Not at all. There are plenty of means to apply pressure without resorting to physical torture. There no particular need for me to detail them all, some could be found on the clips discussed above, or by a simple search of the net. If that's not good enough, consider the quote by Mattis regarding cigarettes and beers.

 

Hmm, you don't really offer any realistic alternatives, Morch.  Okay, let's invite them for tea and cucumber sandwiches which is bound to procure intelligence from the enemy.

[Ulysses G.]

5 hours ago, jesimps said:

I'd let the security services do their job by whatever means they consider necessary.

I would not, under any circumstances, ask for the opinions of liberals or their anarco chums.

 

 

I agree with you and I do think that torture works under certain circumstances. However, none of this should have ever been made public. Terrorists can prepare for waterboarding like our special forces do.

[ilostmypassword]

48 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Haven't you ever watched "24" ?

 

What if that happened to you?

The trouble with taking our cues from shows like 24 is that we know who the person is who has the information. We know he is guilty. In the real world, we don't know. So when you torture someone they will say anything to make it stop. In fact, if you look it up, you'll find that the U.S. torture program was devised by 2 psychologists who had no experience with interrogation. What they had experience with was trying to come up with a program that could help captured troops resist torture. So they reversed engineered it in the belief that they could get people to confess.  The problem is, why would they confess. That's why the FBI refused to assist in torture. Because they knew that it is inherently unreliable in the real word. But in Hollywood land, it works great.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I happen to support John McCains position on this subject; however, I don't think the absence of torture is going to impact ISIS recruitment numbers one iota. 

 

Their motivation is already well seeded. 

 

So why do ISIS dress their victims in orange overalls before beheading them? They just like the colour? Orange is the new black?

 

BTW, please quote my entire post not just parts of it! Thanks!

[Morch]

1 minute ago, bubblewrap said:

 

Hmm, you don't really offer any realistic alternatives, Morch.  Okay, let's invite them for tea and cucumber sandwiches which is bound to procure intelligence from the enemy.

 

And you don't really read posts, what of it?

The information is easily available, and even pointed out on this topic.

There was nothing said about your tea time nonsense.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

I agree with you and I do think that torture works under certain circumstances. However, none of this should have ever been made public. Terrorists can prepare for waterboarding like our special forces do.

In fact, our special forces can't prepare for waterboarding. If you had bothered to read the whole thread, you would find that nobody can prepare for it. The question is, does it produce reliable information. And it's obvious that the answer has to be no since people will say anything to make torture stop.

[tifino]

 

It was all bluff

- but the secret is out now that the trumpcard was played out by the bleaters

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, bubblewrap said:

I don't consider waterboarding as torture.  It's more attitude adjustment therapy.

 

Pulling out toenails with a pair of hot pliers is torture.  Even then, it's okay by me if used under the right circumstances and 100% of liberals would agree if their next of kin were blown to smithereens by a terrorist. 

 

Some of us are rather more civilised than that.

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The trouble with taking our cues from shows like 24 is that we know who the person is who has the information. We know he is guilty. In the real world, we don't know. So when you torture someone they will say anything to make it stop. In fact, if you look it up, you'll find that the U.S. torture program was devised by 2 psychologists who had no experience with interrogation. What they had experience with was trying to come up with a program that could help captured troops resist torture. So they reversed engineered it in the belief that they could get people to confess.  The problem is, why would they confess. That's why the FBI refused to assist in torture. Because they knew that it is inherently unreliable in the real word. But in Hollywood land, it works great.

 

The post was not intended to be taken seriously.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

9 hours ago, Cats4ever said:

I remember, as a kid, watching the old WW2 propaganda movies of evil nazis torturing heroic resistance or allied agents and thinking good people could never do such things. As for the Japs, ditto.

 

Only the Allies DID torture prisoners during WW2 - although we have been brainwashed otherwise. Torture has been used in every war, but usually governments are not stupid enough to talk about it publicly.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

In fact, our special forces can't prepare for waterboarding. If you had bothered to read the whole thread, you would find that nobody can prepare for it. The question is, does it produce reliable information. And it's obvious that the answer has to be no since people will say anything to make torture stop.

 

It's not that you "can't prepare", just that preparation is no immunity. Ultimately everyone breaks. Preparation to interrogation techniques can help manage mental and physical resources, and can help delay certain breaking points.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

It's not that you "can't prepare", just that preparation is no immunity. Ultimately everyone breaks. Preparation to interrogation techniques can help manage mental and physical resources, and can help delay certain breaking points.

As noted above, interrogators were very impressed that Khalid Mohammed held out for 2 minutes!  Maybe with preparation some of our troops could hold out for 3.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Only the Allies DID torture prisoners during WW2 - although we have been brainwashed otherwise. Torture has been used in every war, but usually governments are not stupid enough to talk about it publicly.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html

The trouble with these assertions is that they are just that.  No hard documentation.  So, naturally, the people who carried out the torture will claim great success.  

[ClutchClark]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Fake as in that the situation is contrived. To put it less eloquently, when someone's head is held down in a toilet, the difference between it being a fake or real drowning is academic. Not what most people have in mind during the process.

 

Waterboarding is (theoretically) a controlled situation. The interrogator knows how much pressure can be applied, with subjects breaking way before the actual limit is reached. There's usually no need for CPR etc. as each round will be stopped before that's needed. Again, I don't think that physically there's a difference. Probably even worse, as the experience is shortly repeated.

 

OK. So then it is not actually drowning?

 

If I am an American captured by IS then I know with certainty that my head is going to shortly be separated from my torso.

 

If I am an enemy combatant or terrorist captured by the US then I know that I cannot be killed and I cannot be tortured.

If I am waterboarded then I know that they can not actually drown me...they are required to keep me alive.

That knowledge seems to remove much of the fear involved with the act.

 

Thats just what my though process would be in such circumstances. As I said previously, my self-identity as an American is similar to John McCain's--I am proud that we don't resort to the same base behaviors as our enemies.

Edited November 23, 2016 by ClutchClark