I wonder why the use of drugs such as sodium pentothal would be considered torture by AI?

Just my observation but AI seems to beleive that all methods of interrogation beyond asking a suspect a question in a normal environment are either torture or at least unethical. AI is made is of folks who have a bit of an utopian mindset which is an admirable ideal yet and untenable reality. These are the same folks who beleive that if we just make nice that other folks will make nice too and refuse to beleive that there are legitimately untrustworthy people in the world. This view while naive perhaps certainly has an admirable purity to it.

Just my observation but AI seems to beleive that all methods of interrogation beyond asking a suspect a question in a normal environment are either torture or at least unethical. AI is made is of folks who have a bit of an utopian mindset which is an admirable ideal yet and untenable reality. These are the same folks who beleive that if we just make nice that other folks will make nice too and refuse to beleive that there are legitimately untrustworthy people in the world. This view while naive perhaps certainly has an admirable purity to it.

Thank you for the explanantion.  And admirable purity was what got 6 million Jews, 2 Million Cambodians and 20 Million Russians a fast ticket to the next plane of existance.

Myopic fools.

Just my observation but AI seems to beleive that all methods of interrogation beyond asking a suspect a question in a normal environment are either torture or at least unethical.

It isn't just AI that views it this way. After first reading this post and early replies a couple of days ago, I went and actually read the Geneva Convention. According to the Convention, any type of coersion, mental duress, yelling, etc. is unacceptable to use against a prisoner of war. The key to all of this is the designation of a prisoner of war. The Convention has several entries to fully define a prisoner of war, and in my honest opinion most (but not all) of the detainees at GTMO do NOT fall into the POW category. They are enemy combatants, but not of a national, nor an organized militia under a defined command structure with a defined symbol and openly bearing arms. So, if they are not POWs, and the Convention doesn't apply as relates to intensive questioning, then the Convention should also not apply in terms of torture (at least in regards to the non-POWs).

The hard part is clearly identifying who is, and who is not a POW, and treating them appropriately.

Personally, I agree with Greywar about torture and how it's use could begin our government and society on a very slippery slope. However, we should clarify for the sake of accuracy the fact that these individuals (or most of them at least) are not POWs, and the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

Strange how we didn't hear any whining from the left when the target of the loud music and bright lights were American religious zealouts in a little place called... WACO.

Strange how we didn't hear any whining from the left when the target of the loud music and bright lights were American religious zealouts in a little place called... WACO.

it is very difficult to be completel;y devoid of this sort of selective blindness as humans unfortuneately.

I went and actually read the Geneva Convention.

something I probably should have done as well...

Very pithy points indeed there meladdo. The POW exclusion bit works it's way back into due-process and whether we as a society beleive that we should extend those same rights of jurisprudence to non-citizens. Frankly I think we must. That rates an Insightful for your comment.

 

Oh yes... also Wanderer has his own views on the matter posted over here. I would also hold his article up as one of the finest examples of blog ettiquette ever. He had a lot of thoughts to post but rather than put up several pages here in a commentary section (everyone here has done a good job of keeping it short and pithy (save me)) he wrote his own article and even went to the trouble of linking back to the article that inspired it. Like a breath of fresh air really

On the AI thing (hehe, also stands for 'artificial intelligence' - the irony kills me, it really does) I think they form an essential part of daily life. Sure they're a little over-earnest and definitely a little too idealistic to follow their every suggestion, but they do fill a valuable role. I'm sure everyone can remember some over-earnest person in their own life stopping them from doing something they shouldn't have. We need that sort of thing even if we dismiss it. It makes sure we at least think about our actions.

If by "torture" they mean, playing loud Rap music, turning the Air Conditioning up too high, or down too low, and feeding prisoners meals appropriate to their cultural and religious beleifs? Sure, I'm all for it! ;~D

If by "torture" they mean, playing loud Rap music, turning the Air Conditioning up too high, or down too low, and feeding prisoners meals appropriate to their cultural and religious beleifs?

sounds like life in the barracks to me!

sounds like life in the barracks to me!

Once again we're not supposed to treat terrorist scum as bad as we treat our own troops.

I wonder what kind of puppies know-nothing whiners like the Traitor Durbin would have if they kept the terrorists at the National Training Center, or made them take their dumps in Latrines with now stalls between the toilets!

Until the treatment of the terrorist scum gets worse than an average field exercise at Ft. Bragg, they should just SHUT THEIR MAGGOT INFESTED FACES. ;~D

Once again we're not supposed to treat terrorist scum as bad as we treat our own troops.

again, the vast majority of the planet lacks the context to realize that this is the case.

would you be willing to undergo the same treatment that the prisoners at gitmo get?

would you be willing to undergo the same treatment that the prisoners at gitmo get?

if you haven't figured it out my friend, I have undergone worse than that before I was even 16. Hell even waterd down basic is harder than that.

the vast majority of the planet lacks the context to realize that this is the case.

this is so very true. On my thread Life-Happens mentioned standing in parades. People object to the prisoners being forced to stand for extended periods of time in the sun... Please. Until you've done a battalion change of command on an airstrip in Texas in July, you don't know what you are talking about. It may feel bad while it's happening, but it aint torture, it's just discomfort. Parated is right too. Your average field problem exposes soldiers to worse conditions than the prisoners At Guantanamo experience.

would you be willing to undergo the same treatment that the prisoners at gitmo get?

Been there, done that (though not at Gitmo). My coldest parachute jump was -10F ground temp (who knows what it was at 1250ft in the Utah Rockies putting our "knees in the breeze" at 120knots). Coldest field exercise was about the same -10F (probably the same exercise, as the contingency exercise after the jump. We slept in sleeping bags in 3/4 inch plywood shelters with nothing in the windows or doorways.

Hottest is a toss up:

The desert of Saudi Arabia (at 130+F, living in a tent with a few fans teasing us with a little airmovement, interrupted by the massive air movement of a sand storm where you can't open your canteen for a few hours, unless of course you want to spend the next few hours after the storm clearing the cement out of it (after not getting the drink you foolishly opened the thing up for in the first place). Come to think of it, isn't that a good description of what most the detainees call "home"?

National Training Center (Fort Irwin, CA), looking over the valley into a fun in the sun spot called "Death Valley", in September. Again, the temp was +130. This time I didn't spend anytime in a tent, since the Self Propelled Artillery moves too quickly for such "luxuries". We made the mistake of sticking one of our powder thermometers (much like a meat thermometer) in the ground one and watched the thing top out at 180F.

The thing is, I never went through Special Forces, Ranger, Marine Force Recon, Air Force PJs or Navy SEAL school (although I was Airborne), so I can say with all confidence that I was nowhere close to having it as bad as it gets. Every other vet out there can vouch for that.

So, Mr. Outernational, unless you can find evidence that those poor little detainees are being put through anything close to what my (and my fellow troops) called our "JOB DESCRIPTION", I'm sorry, but hearing about them getting three hots and a cot, with religious and cultural benefits, I'm just not really that impressed with the lies of a few know-nothing whiners in the Senate, Amnesty International, The ICRC, or anyone else for that matter. The way I see it, those detainees are being treated with kid gloves. Come to think of it, the average Farmer goes through worse than the detainees at Gitmo

Once again we're not supposed to treat terrorist scum as bad as we treat our own troops.

I remember an exercise where I had to spend a few days at the interrogation tent waiting for repair parts for my truck. When we moved from one place to another, the engineer unit came out and dug the POW hole but the individual Soldiers had to dig their own hasty fighting positions. I was told that the prisoners get the first hole, and it was generally built very big and with overhead cover, before the interrogators built their own 18 inch deep "lay in it and pray it's deep enough" hole. That way if an attack came, they could provide sufficient protection for the POWs, even at their own expense.

Isn't there a difference though? Troops are treated poorly because it's assumed that bad treatment will make them more efficient soldiers. Maybe discomfort makes people angrier? More willing to kill or something? I don't know the theory behind the whole practice. But it's part of training and tradition as you have said.

As the majority of the men in Gitmo and elsewhere haven't been convicted or even charged then they are simply guests of the US government. It's uncivilised to subject a guest to discomfort when it's unnecessary and seemingly ineffective (how many convictions have come out of that prison? How many got sent home a while back? It doesn't seem to be working...)

It's uncivilised to subject a guest to discomfort when it's unnecessary and seemingly ineffective (how many convictions have come out of that prison? How many got sent home a while back? It doesn't seem to be working...)

     The effectiveness of the treatment is fairly high actually. Fact is the sucesses that have come from Gitmo don't get press because they are classified. The goverment isn't worried about convictions here (see the thing about jurisprudence) they do however know that prisoners given an apartment, cable, freedom to do what they wish, telephone access, and a law library don't give them squat. Beleive it or not the "comfy chair" technique has had very little sucess in the history of intelligence gathering. Are you really suggesting that it would?

     The difference between discomfort and torture is vast folks. I do however agree that extra legal proceedings like these (read as no dues process) over prolonged periods of time are very shaky.

We are put through the discomforts in training to better prepare us for the discomforts of war. Including any discomforts we may be put through while "guests" of the enemy.

Comfort is not expected at the hands of even the most Geneva respecting of nations.

Troops are treated poorly because it's assumed that bad treatment will make them more efficient soldiers. Maybe discomfort makes people angrier? More willing to kill or something? I don't know the theory behind the whole practice. But it's part of training and tradition as you have said.

You've obviously never been in the military. Training is to prepare you for combat conditions which are far from comfortable. There aren't many soldiers in the field who do combat in a recliner.

As the majority of the men in Gitmo and elsewhere haven't been convicted or even charged then they are simply guests of the US government.

They aren't "guests". They are detainees. They have sometimes been referred to as Persons Under U.S. Control (PUUC), but they are not considered "guests". As Greywar mentioned, we aren't overly concerned with convictions. The amount of evidence needed for a conviction is immense, and often the methods of obtaining the evidence would relegate the evidence as inadmissable in a "court of law". I agree that there is an issue with due process here, but having worked with some of the MI elements in Afghanistan, I can testify that some good is coming out of these detentions. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that we have a 100% record in getting bad guys. Some of the folks have been innocent, which is a problem. We've been operating on the "better safe than sorry" assumption though. Hopefully, as we get better intel set up, we can reduce the number of innocents detained significantly, to prevent such horrible mistakes from happening. In the meantime, rest assured, the current system has produced positive results in the War on Terrorism.

I just wish that the American news would remember what torture really is. They show photos of a frat party at gitmo while they should be showing what is happening to American prisoners.....Maybe they think its a crime to take a picture of a naked detainee and its OK to chop off the head of an American.....hmmmm.....Sometimes I wonder what side the press is on. I want the American people to see the planes crash in to the WTC, I want them to see the terrorists cut the head off of an American, I want them to be as mad as I was while watching that video on AFN while I was sitting in Baghdad. I don't want the American people to ever forget that we are fighting an enemy with no honor, no morals, and the will to do whatever they think is necessary.

www.303dsoldier.blogspot.com

I'm willing to consider any measures that break down a detainee's ability to shield his inner mind from the interrogator.

Anything from inducing anxiety to inducing physical pain is on the table, as far as I'm concerned.

My stipulations would be that such measures are undertaken under the supervision of trained and authorized interrogators, who are cross-checking the intel they obtain with other sources, in order to end the torture the moment it is no longer necessary.

Also, that the torture sessions (but not necessarily the methods) are fully documented, presented to a Senate committee for immediate but secret oversight, and that the documents are ultimately declassified, so that every score of years or so the public can see what kinds of results torture tends to have, and participate in the decision to keep using it or not.

I'm pretty sure that this is more or less the system we have right now.