Doing the right thing?

[NutLoose]

So it's OK to bomb terrorists (i.e. ISIS/L), causing death, pain and disfigurement on their own territory, but giving them a slap or almost drowning them in your own territory is a no-no?

I am surprised you cannot see the difference
Considering you are Bombing a fighting force that is armed and fighting back on one hand, the other is mistreatment of prisoners who cannot fight back.

I do find it ironic the world made a rush over trying to bring to justice those involved in torture in Bosnia and then on the same hand condone the use of torture for their own purposes.

As to the question asked re people knowing, well the flights mentioned coming through the UK I would doubt anyone on the ground seeing in the Jets, refuelling or handling the aircraft would know what or who was onboard, indeed it may be possible that no one in the UK knew what was going on, though I doubt it.
An example of what I mean, when Bush visited Iraq, Airforce one overflew the UK identing as a Challenger, in fact a passing flight asked ATC if that was Airforce One overhead to be told no it was a Challenger.

.

[Lonewolf_50]

The fallacy of omniscience, and requirement for same among aircrew, is a noteworthy feature of the OP's failed reasoning, or the attempt thereof.

The other fallacious position is of a chain of command that has perfect transparency and perfect understanding of all that goes on among all persons in same.

When you get to the real world, give us a call, and we'll buy you a pint.

[NutLoose]

Don't forget they were not all terrorists, some were innocent.

OUTSOURCING TORTURE - The New Yorker

Whatever the outcome, is has besmirched the USA's good name.

[ShotOne]

Well said, sunwho, on the nail.

Wrathmonk, how does the Geneva Convention come into this, being as we're not at war with Pakistan? If the Libyan who shot WPC Yvonne Fletcher was obeying a legal order does that get him off?

Our way will prevail against terrorism. But it will only prevail by our setting higher standards, even when it's difficult to do so, not by dropping to theirs

[Roadster280]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

I am surprised you cannot see the difference
Considering you are Bombing a fighting force that is armed and fighting back on one hand, the other is mistreatment of prisoners who cannot fight back.

I do find it ironic the world made a rush over trying to bring to justice those involved in torture in Bosnia and then on the same hand condone the use of torture for their own purposes.

As to the question asked re people knowing, well the flights mentioned coming through the UK I would doubt anyone on the ground seeing in the Jets, refuelling or handling the aircraft would know what or who was onboard, indeed it may be possible that no one in the UK knew what was going on, though I doubt it.
An example of what I mean, when Bush visited Iraq, Airforce one overflew the UK identing as a Challenger, indeed a passing flight asked ATC if that was Airforce One overhead to be told no it was a Challenger.

So if you have been captured by these terrorists, and then I capture one of theirs, you would be OK if I just politely questioned my prisoner as to your whereabouts?

If the boots were on the other feet, I would prefer that you made absolutely certain that your prisoner had no information on my whereabouts before you let him rest in his cell. If that involved ridiculing the size of his man parts in front of female staff, stress positions, near-drowning, vicious dogs barking at him 24/7 and the odd slap, then I am 100% fine with that. Just so long as you come and get me before "Jihadi John" gets his machete out. To quote Captain Ramsay from Crimson Tide "We don't have time to **** about".

[Sun Who]

Roadster 280,

Mate, it's not a question of tit-for-tat, TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.
If you accept that, and do it anyway, then that's really questionable.

Sun

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Roadster280

So if you have been captured by these terrorists, and then I capture one of theirs, you would be OK if I just politely questioned my prisoner as to your whereabouts.

That is a question of immediate tactical interrogation (a word I suspect will go the way of Propaganda). By the time you have employed any more protracted techniques the rescue window will have been well shut.

The last time a soft interrogation was successfully used was by an honourable conventional enemy within living memory of most patients here.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

Whatever the outcome, is has besmirched the USA's good name.

That's a non trivial issue, and the Abu Ghraib mess likewise tarnished our rep.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Sun Who

Mate, it's not a question of tit-for-tat, TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.

If you correct that to "torture doesn't always work" and "can be counterproductive when used" you'd be closer to the mark.

Your broad statement is not actually true, party due to being too broad and over generalized, and partly due to what's already been reported years ago, in terms of intel gleaned that provided puzzle pieces that eventually led to getting Osama years later.

(No, the Jack Bauer ticking bomb scenario isn't real life ... )
Pontius: if you are referring to how they finally got Al Zarqawi in Iraq ... yes, some patient work led to getting a bead on him, but it took three years to get that bead on him. In the interim, he killed a lot of folks, and orchestrated the killing of hundreds, even thousands, in the anti Shiite campaign he was waging.

[Mr.Noritake]

I thought the question in my original post and subsequent follow up was quite specific. Evidence suggests it wasn't.

As jonw66 noted, there is a thread running on Jet Blast where those wishing to give vent to their feelings on the appropriateness or otherwise of the practices detailed in the Senate Committee report may offer their thoughts.

I'm grateful to those who offered their opinions in response on my original question. It's much appreciated. May I respectfully suggest to those who wish to offer their thoughts on matters beyond the scope of my original question that they do so on a thread where the OP may actually care to hear them?

[Lonewolf_50]

The reply I offered you in post 22 suffices to concisely outline the problem with the question posed.

Even putting aside the somewhat risky future position American aviators captured by hostile forces have now been placed in (yes, torture is horrible and wrong but you won't face prosecution if you use it...) what's the legal position regarding those pilots involved in rendition flights? After all, most knew the people they were transporting were going to undergo something more than 'a severe talking to'.

I like to think I'd have declined to pilot a rendition flight on moral grounds and let the chips fall where they may.

Thanks for the laugh.

[West Coast]

Sun who

I listen to both sides of the argument regarding the accuracy of information extracted from those who have undergone these procedures. There are those who argue that actionable intelligence was gleened. Of course, plenty who say no.
What they have in common is they are pushing an agenda and not simply offering up thier version or opinion.

Truth is we don't know, and that includes you unless you were at every single one of these events.

I'm going to stay firmly on the fence which is the only rational position to hold minus access to all the relevant data. Doesn't mean you have to like what occurred, just you accept that beyond opinion none of us know what the truth truly is.

[Sun Who]

Torture doesn't work because, even if it gets actionable intelligence (rare) any gains are more than offset by the negative aspects outlined in my previous post. This is the reason torture is not a tool of the thinking man.

Sun.

[Roadster280]

Fair points, although I don't think either the CIA nor I had in mind "torture" per se. Not in the sense of the schemes used by the Nazis or Saddam. Perhaps waterboarding is questionable, but I don't see psychological manipulation in the same light.

[West Coast]

Sun

That's opinion, not fact.

Again, neither you or I have the information to know if actionable intelligence was or wasn't gained. Nor do we have a proper way to gauge if there have been repercussions attributable to this, or if there were, was it worth it to potentially get an intelligence haul of note.

I appreciate you have a strong opinion, however I respectfully suggest you shouldn't hold a strong opinion on EITs minus a complete understanding of the results, which isn't available to either of us.

There's nothing wrong with disliking EITs while acknowledging you don't know if they were productive or not.

[rh200]

I'm rather surprised to see no comments here regarding the recent Senate Committee report into the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program.

Probably most hear know it would descend into a tit for tat argument of absolutes and didn't want to be the one to start the ball rolling.

Even putting aside the somewhat risky future position American aviators captured by hostile forces have now been placed in (yes, torture is horrible and wrong but you won't face prosecution if you use it...)

Will make no absolute difference as a whole, but the ones which would do real torture anyway will just try and use it as an excuse.

what's the legal position regarding those pilots involved in rendition flights? After all, most knew the people they were transporting were going to undergo something more than 'a severe talking to'.

It would depend on the exact knowledge of the pilots I would imagine, and exactly what they where going to be getting.

I like to think I'd have declined to pilot a rendition flight on moral grounds and let the chips fall where they may. But maybe not.

There you have it, moral grounds! Who's morals, the lefts, Osama, the rights, yours.

The western military if they where the ones flying, technically don't follow morals. As far as I'm aware they follow orders unless that order is obviously illegal. Someone in the military could enlighten us to the exact definition. They start following their own individual morals then we are really up sh!t creek without a canoe and paddle.

Thoughts?

You got them

[Sun Who]

West Coast,

While I acknowledge that I don't know if the CIA gained actionable int via what they have chosen to call EIT (a questionable term in itself, not employed by any other western security agency) I do know that the senate inquiry claims they didn't. I also know that inquiry reports the CIA used more than just psychological techniques, opting to just plain beat suspects up in some instances. Of note, from the Senate summary:

The committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism “successes” that the CIA has attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques. Each of those examples was found to be wrong in fundamental respects. In some cases, there was no relationship between the claimed counterterrorism “success” and any information provided by a CIA detainee during or after the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques. In the remaining cases, the CIA inaccurately represented that unique information was acquired from a CIA detainee as a result of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, when in fact the information was either (a) acquired from the CIA detainee prior to the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques or (b) corroborative of information already available to the intelligence community from sources other than the CIA detainee, and therefore not unique or “otherwise unavailable,” which was the standard for effectiveness the CIA presented to the Department of Justice and policymakers.

Sun.

Again, I'm not a liberal and am very happy to kill the enemy when it progresses the aim (and have done so) but the CIA were not advancing the cause of American or Western security in this instance (the opposite in fact).

Although not an expert by any means, I have some passing experience of TQ&I, so am opining with a bit more knowledge than the average Grundian reader, but then, you don't need to be an expert to know when something is both ineffective and wrong.

Sun.

[West Coast]

Do you easily dismiss accounts from those who were in a position to know when they say information was gained? You inferred it was possible to get actionable info, so you'll agree there not categorically lying, but quite possibly telling the truth. Then again they could be CYA'ing, doubtful you and I will ever know as we only have biased data to base our opinions on. Kinda leads back to fence sitting doesn't it?

I also dislike the term EIT, but I can't bring myself to call what these detainees went through torture.

[Sun Who]

I guess I could choose to believe the CIA obtained actionable intelligence via these means but it doesn't matter because the main point remains that as an instrument to achieve effect it doesn't work (see my initial post).

You may struggle to call what the detainees went through torture, but I think it fits the definition:

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):

“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

Also of note, the CIA had no expertise in interrogation prior to 9/11. They reverse engineered their own RTI programme. The FBI who really do know about interrogation, offered to undertake the necessary activity but the CIA declined.

Sun

[rh200]

There was a nice piece on CNN earlier today. It featured what was supposedly one of the shrinks involved. He's calling on the government to lift his non confidentiality agreement so he can have his say.

As for torture/ or what ever else you want to call its use, everyone keeps missing the point, its a tool to be used in conjunction with other tools, by itself its virtually useless.

As for the UN, they don't rule the world, the only thing that matters are individuals countries legal definitions and laws.