re: Do you believe torture/enhanced interrogation is effective ?

quote:

---

What about it was torture? What are you ok with? Do you really believe the expert cited in the op can just make friends with the terrorist and get the info?

---

If it violates the Geneva Convention, it is torture.

Examples include humiliating and degrading treatment, not treating wounds (the report discusses one detainee who did not receive care for a bullet wound), violence (like beating).

quote:

---

Of course they're going to say that. Would you expect them to say anything differently?

---

You already laid out the winning argument.

Insinuating enhanced interrogation is ineffective is silly. Why go there?

Diane Fienstein's staff is said to be most responsible for this report. The person on her staff that is over foriegn policy graduated college in 2008.

How about if I give a little more credibility to former CIA directors than these people?

This stuff was known about prior to this report. The program has been known about for some time.

Do yourself a favor, actually read the conclusion section, it is about 20 pages, of the report instead of just trashing it.

so , let me ask this question, if your innocent loved one, your country was at risk of death from some terrorist and you knew you could beat the shite out of him to get the information that would save your child, wife, country, would you do it? Please identify yourself if you would not do this

We don't chop fingers off, we don't pour acid on people, we don't light them on fire [although the president likes to drone people (to death) and that is somehow ok in the liberal world]

I have no qualms about our military and CIA and whatever other agencies are involved in stopping terrorism beating the crap out of someone, making them so uncomfortable that they give up the goods...

quote:

---

If it violates the Geneva Convention, it is torture

---

I've never read any of the Geneva Convention Treaties in their entirety but my understanding is that they grant extensive protections to uniformed personnel who report to a defined chain of command and fight under a recognized flag. There are lesser protections for indigenous peoples resisting foreign forces without benefit of a uniform. Spies, mercenaries, pirates, and brigands are very specifically excluded. Al Quaida and Blackwater both operate entirely outside of Geneva protections.

ISIS is a grayer area.

quote:

---

I trust them more than a bunch of 25 year old staffers working under Diane Fienstein. That ok?

---

I'm not being asked to take the staffers on faith. They have footnotes.

I worry about certain other 3-letter G agencies.... But not the CIA.

Yup, I'm a civilian but if I'm not mistaken there are a few rules against armed first responder medical personnel, certain types of rounds our forces use and others according to the Geneva convention but we sidestep those because the war on terror isn't a declared armed conflict between nation states.

quote:

---

have no experience in the matter and must rely on experts opinions. The speaker went on to discribe what was done to "interigate" the suspects. Apparently sleep deprivation and water boarding wasn't enough. There was embarrassment with parading them around nude, feeding them through their rectum, and simulating sexual things on them with objects. If true, that is unacceptable and NOT American. Period.

---

Sleep deprivation, exposure to constant cold, extreme physical exertion, and being submerged in in a pool with your hands, and feet bound with the real possibility of drowning if you panic are all techniques used during the training of military special op candidates, yet when used on unwilling participants it becomes torture, really?

"There was embarrassment with parading them around nude, feeding them through their rectum, and simulating sexual things on them with objects. "

What was once fraternity hazing is now torture, again really?