Torture ? What torture ?

dbermanmd · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 19 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]321661[/snapback]</div>

I guess I'll keelp asking until someone answers. What kind of military intervention would have prevented 9/11? If you can connect the dots in a tangible way between invading one or two countries and preventing a terrorist attack in US soil my hat's off to you.

BTW, torturing prisoners debase us, most importantly, it does not work. Bush and Co. probably want torture because you can make anyone say anything. Just like some of the fabricated Iraq/al Qaida connection "evidence" came from torture.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Keep asking - you are asking a hypothetical. Ask what if bj took the offers of getting rid of obl - what would that have done - prevent 9/11? And yes, prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - that is an easy one. And they are not talking about torture - there are other alternatives that are very effective.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]321654[/snapback]</div>

Infiltration, pay-offs, cutting off of resources and finances, special ops, and intelligence resources.

counter-intelligence as well can be effective.
[/b]
Click to expand...

true - especially when backed up with military might and the willingness to use it. it is tough when the NY Times etc keeps spilling state secrets too.

MarinJohn · Sep 19, 2006

What goes around, comes around

glenhead · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 19 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]321661[/snapback]</div>

I guess I'll keelp asking until someone answers. What kind of military intervention would have prevented 9/11? If you can connect the dots in a tangible way between invading one or two countries and preventing a terrorist attack in US soil my hat's off to you.

BTW, torturing prisoners debase us, most importantly, it does not work. Bush and Co. probably want torture because you can make anyone say anything. Just like some of the fabricated Iraq/al Qaida connection "evidence" came from torture.
[/b]
Click to expand...

There isn't any kind of military intervention that would have prevented 9/11, any more than there was that would have prevented Pearl Harbor. You can't predict that whackos are going to do whacko things.

Ah, yes, the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. The people in Iraq who want to chop off our heads, rip out our intestines, and then convert us to Islam are entirely different from the ones who flew planes into our buildings (shamelessly plagiarized from blamebush.com). Isn't that a comfort. What about the intel we've gotten from our aggressive interrogation techniques that has enabled us to stop plans for attacks, or stop the building of roadside bombs, or find and destroy weapons caches, or other really-truly beneficial things?

I'll keep asking my question, too. What should we do instead? Roll over and bare our bellies (again), and expect that the whackos are going to play nice?

efusco · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 19 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]321728[/snapback]</div>

I'll keep asking my question, too. What should we do instead? Roll over and bare our bellies (again), and expect that the whackos are going to play nice?

[/b]
Click to expand...

Answered above. But the clear answer isn't to do something stupid that leads to even worse consequences just because you're not smart enough to know the right thing to do.

triphop · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]321729[/snapback]</div>

Answered above. But the clear answer isn't to do something stupid that leads to even worse consequences just because you're not smart enough to know the right thing to do.
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about invading the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the next time a bunch of Saudis attack us. Oh, wait, we are in bed with them.

How hard is it to understand that attacking people who never attacked us is no way to win any war.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 19 2006, 02:02 PM) [snapback]321728[/snapback]</div>

I'll keep asking my question, too. What should we do instead? Roll over and bare our bellies (again), and expect that the whackos are going to play nice?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is a prime example of a "Stupid Question" or, more kindly, what is known as a false dichotomy - a high-school debating tactic.

PS They might be fanatics, bloodthirsty, whatever,but they are certainly not whackos. It is the clear goal of terrorists to goad an overreaction. OBL had no idea in his most optimist dreams that we would actually take out his sworn enemy, Iraq.

glenhead · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]321654[/snapback]</div>

Infiltration, pay-offs, cutting off of resources and finances, special ops, and intelligence resources.

counter-intelligence as well can be effective.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I agree 100% - when dealing with conventional combatants.

Infiltration works well, except in an isolated, cellular structure like our troops are up against now. It's nearly impossible to get high enough in the organization quickly enough to do any good - knowledge gets very compartmentalized very quickly.

Payoffs only work if the people you're dealing with are interested in money, and aren't coming from a radically different view of the world. These people aren't after money - they're after making everyone believe the way they do.

Cutting off resources and finances only works if there are identifiable flows to cut off. Things are so diffuse, again because of the isolated, compartmentalized nature of the groups our troops are dealing with, that cutting off one flow is nothing more than a blip.

Special ops work well, but require timely, accurate intelligence (otherwise we bomb aspirin factories (now who was president when that happened?)). Remind me again how we get this intelligence? We don't just trip across it lying in the middle of the road.

Intelligence resources work well, but there has to be a cultivatable source for these resources. When you're dealing with fanatics, there's nobody to cultivate.

Counter-intelligence works well, especially when dealing with conventional combatants. Signal intelligence is especially worthwhile, but it seems there's a group of people having hissies about gathering sigint - hmm, who might that be?

triphop · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 19 2006, 02:14 PM) [snapback]321736[/snapback]</div>

Counter-intelligence works well, especially when dealing with conventional combatants. Signal intelligence is especially worthwhile, but it seems there's a group of people having hissies about gathering sigint - hmm, who might that be?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh, you know, those pesky people who actually think that the 4th amendment stands for more than empty words on a scrap of paper.

dbermanmd · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 19 2006, 02:00 PM) [snapback]321725[/snapback]</div>

What goes around, comes around
[/b]
Click to expand...

Hopefully - now captured American POW's will have rights involving habeus corpus, due process, legal representation, access to an open and unbiased trial, appeals processes too that are open and accessable to the entire world. Heck, maybe they will even have someone like you that will be pressing their side to stop killing innocent civilians and to stop killing their POW's???

efusco · Sep 19, 2006

So, because those means are difficult we chose a course of action that is doomed to be unsuccessful, cause loss of world support, kill thousands of innocents and ultimately make the situation worse.

I, in fact, agree with many of your counter-points to a degree. They are all difficult and require different techniques to successfully employ. However, I think they can all work. Patience is required instead of haste to win this war. Hast will make it worse, ultimately, and not make us safer. Patience is not the same as rolling over. Patience is the intelligent way to achieve our goals. Allow the enemy to make mistakes. Allow them to become over-confident. Allow the intelligence to solidify.

Could there be other terror attacks and American deaths during this time...sure. And at home we need to still be on guard and we need to use our intelligence resouces to identify and stop threats...nobody's suggesting we roll-over and let that happen. But using conventional means like bombs and shooting people isn't going to work. We need to be more patient, more meticulous, more dedicated and more willing to die than our enemy.

dbermanmd · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 02:23 PM) [snapback]321742[/snapback]</div>

So, because those means are difficult we chose a course of action that is doomed to be unsuccessful, cause loss of world support, kill thousands of innocents and ultimately make the situation worse.

I, in fact, agree with many of your counter-points to a degree. They are all difficult and require different techniques to successfully employ. However, I think they can all work. Patience is required instead of haste to win this war. Hast will make it worse, ultimately, and not make us safer. Patience is not the same as rolling over. Patience is the intelligent way to achieve our goals. Allow the enemy to make mistakes. Allow them to become over-confident. Allow the intelligence to solidify.

Could there be other terror attacks and American deaths during this time...sure. And at home we need to still be on guard and we need to use our intelligence resouces to identify and stop threats...nobody's suggesting we roll-over and let that happen. But using conventional means like bombs and shooting people isn't going to work. We need to be more patient, more meticulous, more dedicated and more willing to die than our enemy.
[/b]
Click to expand...

killing them usually stops them pretty well
we agree on a lot of this. i would tend towards being aggressive and keeping them on defense and use all the other stuff we agree on. i would try to be as asymetrical as they are - if not moreso.

glenhead · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 19 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]321731[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately this is a prime example of a "Stupid Question" or, more kindly, what is known as a false dichotomy - a high-school debating tactic.

PS They might be fanatics, bloodthirsty, whatever,but they are certainly not whackos. It is the clear goal of terrorists to goad an overreaction. OBL had no idea in his most optimist dreams that we would actually take out his sworn enemy, Iraq.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Once again, we digress into name calling. Thank you.

If you take the time and supreme effort to read the question to which it refers, as opposed to the subsidiary question in which it is couched, I ask for workable ideas (rather than name calling) pertaining to how we gather timely, accurate information to allow us to stop the people who wish to do us harm. We are dealing with non-conventional combatants, and "classical" intelligence gathering techniques are insufficient to allow an accurate prediction of what school bus the whackos are going to blow up next.

I use the term "whackos" intentionally. These people's activities fall far outside the norm for civilized behavior, and these activities are intentional, not by accident. Whacko, fanatic, extremist, lunatic, whatever. The "goal" of these groups is not to provoke an overreaction - it is to convert the entire world to their view of their religion, and eliminate those who will not submit. They will not be satisfied until there is global Sharia. They represent a tiny sliver of the religion they allege to espouse, and don't hesitate to blow up other people who espouse the same religion. Pretty freakin' whacko to me. Call it what you will.

efusco · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2006, 01:33 PM) [snapback]321748[/snapback]</div>

killing them usually stops them pretty well
we agree on a lot of this. i would tend towards being aggressive and keeping them on defense and use all the other stuff we agree on. i would try to be as asymetrical as they are - if not moreso. [/b]
Click to expand...

This is where it gets down to the nuts and bolts that we disagree on. I agree with being aggressive and keeping "them" on the defensive. But when we create a situation like Iraq we create more of "Them", we give "them" a new front. And while the "them" in Iraq may be on the defensive it hasn't slowed "them" in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan...and evidence even suggests the Taliban has gained strength in Afganistan. And look at "them" in Lebanon...fortunately the UN seems to be trying to address that.

I just think that being aggressive can and should take on a different form than invading a soverign nation like Iraq at a time where they posed no threat....why keep bringing it up? Because I don't want to see it happen again...we're there now, we aren't leaving, hopefully good will come of it, but I think the cost:benefit ratio compared to more controlled, patient and intelligent means just won't be there.

There's a time for guns and bombs and planes...no doubt about it. You've heard no complaints about Afganistan from me or really anyone here. But we need to step back and do the smart patient things to truely place the kinds of barriers that will make terrorism too difficult, to expensive and too risky for those who wish to pursue those means to seek their own ends.

triphop · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]321748[/snapback]</div>

killing them usually stops them pretty well
we agree on a lot of this. i would tend towards being aggressive and keeping them on defense and use all the other stuff we agree on. i would try to be as asymetrical as they are - if not moreso.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Killing them does work up to a point and then you start looking like a bloody oppressor. At that point you lose legitimacy and you find that your list of allies is very thin. Ultimately the quickest way to stop the insurgency is to employ scorched earth tactics and round up people and place them in concentration camps. Of course you will have destroyed the Republic and will have moved very clearly into Empire mode.

// We had to destroy that country to save it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 19 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]321751[/snapback]</div>

Once again, we digress into name calling. Thank you.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Please indicate where I have called you a name. I have, however, intimated that some of your ideas are sophomoric, but that is a different thing.

glenhead · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 01:23 PM) [snapback]321742[/snapback]</div>

So, because those means are difficult we chose a course of action that is doomed to be unsuccessful, cause loss of world support, kill thousands of innocents and ultimately make the situation worse.

I, in fact, agree with many of your counter-points to a degree. They are all difficult and require different techniques to successfully employ. However, I think they can all work. Patience is required instead of haste to win this war. Hast will make it worse, ultimately, and not make us safer. Patience is not the same as rolling over. Patience is the intelligent way to achieve our goals. Allow the enemy to make mistakes. Allow them to become over-confident. Allow the intelligence to solidify.

Could there be other terror attacks and American deaths during this time...sure. And at home we need to still be on guard and we need to use our intelligence resouces to identify and stop threats...nobody's suggesting we roll-over and let that happen. But using conventional means like bombs and shooting people isn't going to work. We need to be more patient, more meticulous, more dedicated and more willing to die than our enemy.
[/b]
Click to expand...

In response to such a well-resoned proposal, I'll respectfully offer a couple of differing viewpoints and a couple of questions.

Penetrating their organizations to any meaningful extent will take decades, if it ever happens. Look at the success rate of infiltrating crime organizations here in the U.S. - our opponents are many orders of magnitude more diffuse than any Mafia family. Are we really willing to expose ourselves for that long?

Once the intelligence solidifies, what then? Arrest them? Then what, allow them to be released on a technicality?

You propose we "use our intelligence resources to identify and stop threats". How can we accomplish this if we shackle our intelligence gathering capabilities?

I really don't believe we can be "more willing to die than our enemy" - they believe that if they die while killing other people, they've bought an automatic ticket to glory. They *want* to die for their cause. Do we really want that for our families, friends, and fellow countrymen?

Alric · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 19 2006, 01:44 PM) [snapback]321753[/snapback]</div>

Killing them does work up to a point and then you start looking like a bloody oppressor. At that point you lose legitimacy and you find that your list of allies is very thin. Ultimately the quickest way to stop the insurgency is to employ scorched earth tactics and round up people and place them in concentration camps. Of course you will have destroyed the Republic and will have moved very clearly into Empire mode.

// We had to destroy that country to save it.
Please indicate where I have called you a name. I have, however, intimated that some of your ideas are sophomoric, but that is a different thing.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kiilng who? Of the 40,000 that we have killed in Iraq during the war I bet you at most 10 were actual terrorists with the capability to hurt america.

This is where we differ. I don't grossly generalize middle easteners as terrorists. Terrorists are just a minor, very minor, percentage of people within a country. Thus, military might alone does not work.

glenhead · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 19 2006, 01:44 PM) [snapback]321753[/snapback]</div>

Please indicate where I have called you a name. I have, however, intimated that some of your ideas are sophomoric, but that is a different thing.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'll grant you a partial point. Where I come from, calling someone's ideas or thoughts "stupid" or "sophomoric" is disrespectful, and such activity equates to name-calling.

IsrAmeriPrius · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Sep 19 2006, 06:16 AM) [snapback]321564[/snapback]</div>

For some or many, maybe this whole thing is confusing. They are unsure if the convention rules apply or not. You get people on both sides of the fence.
[/b]
Click to expand...

The United States Supreme court ruled that the Geneva Convention applies to these prisoners.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 19 2006, 10:47 AM) [snapback]321716[/snapback]</div>

And yes, prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - that is an easy one.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Did you and your fellow neo-cons ever consider why Iran and North Korea are so determined to obtain nuclear weapons?

First they were branded as members of the Axis of Evil, by President Bush, along with Iraq. Then, Bush goes to war and topples one of the marked regimes.

The other two are reacting to the Iraq war by building up their military nuclear capability in the interest of self preservation.

triphop · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 19 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]321765[/snapback]</div>

Kiilng who? Of the 40,000 that we have killed in Iraq during the war I bet you at most 10 were actual terrorists with the capability to hurt america.

This is where we differ. I don't grossly generalize middle easteners as terrorists. Terrorists are just a minor, very minor, percentage of people within a country. Thus, military might alone does not work.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thats my point. Ultimately you lose when you resort to indescriminate force and torture. Thats why the Bush administration has lost - they just don't know it yet. If you wish to retain legitimacy in this action, then you cannot be seen to act illegitimately. Torture and "extraordinary renditions" and mass detentions are indications of this.

efusco · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 19 2006, 01:54 PM) [snapback]321763[/snapback]</div>

In response to such a well-resoned proposal, I'll respectfully offer a couple of differing viewpoints and a couple of questions.

Penetrating their organizations to any meaningful extent will take decades, if it ever happens. Look at the success rate of infiltrating crime organizations here in the U.S. - our opponents are many orders of magnitude more diffuse than any Mafia family. Are we really willing to expose ourselves for that long?

Once the intelligence solidifies, what then? Arrest them? Then what, allow them to be released on a technicality?

You propose we "use our intelligence resources to identify and stop threats". How can we accomplish this if we shackle our intelligence gathering capabilities?

I really don't believe we can be "more willing to die than our enemy" - they believe that if they die while killing other people, they've bought an automatic ticket to glory. They *want* to die for their cause. Do we really want that for our families, friends, and fellow countrymen? [/b]
Click to expand...

We can both come up with hypothetical 'what ifs' all day long, it will get this conversation no further forward.

I don't believe it would take 'decades' to infiltrate. In fact, looking at situations like Zarqawi (sorry about the spelling) we had good intelligence from someone he trusted that allowed us to reach him. The leaders of all these organizations are being replaced on a not infrequent basis. Creating scenarios where intelligent "angry" Islamic Secret Service agents work their way into such organizations would take years, but not decades, to get far enough in to provide useful information...where do they train, what are their plans, where do the instructions come from, what tools are being used to transmit instructions, where did the payments come from, etc. Sure, you're not going to have someone work up to being OBL's top aid in 2 years, but that isn't what'll be necessary, someone who can learn the ways and means of their operations can easily provide enough information to allow outside resources to narrow the scope dramatically and quickly enough to lead to capture.

I also still belive Muslims love their children. I think many are swayed by money and the possiblity of freedom, and a new life in the US. I think they would be willing to be informants if assurances of protection can be provided.

Once intelligence solidifies you carpet bomb, you move in with overwhelming troop forces, and you precison strike...that's an easy one. Don't try to eat the whole cow in one bite, wait until you find that rib-eye and take it down!

I don't want our intelligence shackled, but I also don't want it left without proper checks and balances. This discussion has occured. There are more than adequate laws to allow for wire-taps of any calls necessary...and the WH need only make a case to the FISA courts within 48 hours of initiating for permission to continue. The problem is that this WH has chosen to disregard that law. I don't want US citizens' rights violated in the name of intelligence gathering and I don't think it is necessary to do so while still being effective.

glenhead · Sep 19, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 19 2006, 02:07 PM) [snapback]321783[/snapback]</div>

We can both ... still being effective.
[/b]
Click to expand...

You've raised some good points, and things to ponder. Thanks.

Torture ? What torture ?

dbermanmd New Member

MarinJohn Senior Member

glenhead New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

triphop New Member

glenhead New Member

triphop New Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

glenhead New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

triphop New Member

glenhead New Member

Alric New Member

glenhead New Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

triphop New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

glenhead New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Torture ? What torture ?

dbermanmd New Member

MarinJohn Senior Member

glenhead New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

triphop New Member

glenhead New Member

triphop New Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

glenhead New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

triphop New Member

glenhead New Member

Alric New Member

glenhead New Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

triphop New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

glenhead New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member