Treach….I have a question for you.

Congratulations.

Leftists are busy complaining about US waterboarding to score populist points after the fall of the Bush Administration. No one seems to have placed these events in an international context. Here’s an account of how Russia used to deal with Chechenyan…

How many seconds’ worth of water poured on the face of the guy who destroyed the World Trade Center is “inhumane”?

That depends ENTIRELY on how much sulfuric acid is mixed with the water.

Rape is also about power and control.

Fair enough.

Rape, torture and slavery all negate the free will of the victim.

Not necessarily “all,” for that depends on the victim and on the nature of their personality and will.

Isn’t that true of torture?

And THIS is where looking through Gestapho and the old Kremlin archieves comes in handy.

Not necessarily.

Much depends on HOW the torture is applied. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a difference between steadily slicing someone’s limbs up and rape in that the former is meant to give the victim a pause to recover and spill the beans, while the latter is by defintion almost uncontrolled and carnal. Indeed, our dear friends the Cheka were told as early as 1919 to NOT rape women during interrogation, because it would likely put them into shock and make them effectively useless. It is also worth noting that similar restrictions were put in place regulating how fast one could mutilate an opponent who was actually being interrogated for information (as opposed to being interrogated as a pretense) for the same reason: those in shock are not good for wringing questions out of.

It is also the same reason we did not grievously mutilate KSM: he was more valuable to us alive and in working order.

Not all torture is created alike. That is something you learn VERY quickly when you are forced to study thugs like Heydrich, Himmler, Beria, and Yezhov. Some tortures you use to simply torture for torture’s sake (IE the Sheikh hitting the merchant with the board) and there are some you use to actually extract information (IE waterboarding, the “Russian Piano,” etc). And rape falls into the former due to both its sexual nature and its rabid and largely feral nature.

Please come again.

Exit question: How many seconds’ worth of water poured on the face of the guy who destroyed the World Trade Center is “inhumane”?

Let me see. Why don’t we start with one incident of actual waterboarding for each death at the WTC as a minimum. After all, a little discomfort like waterboarding is minor compared to murdering people. I would not be opposed to ten application per victim.

At some point you have to be practical about this. The idea that you cannot use torture on a prisoner to gain information is based on conventions that assume your opponent is following some rules of honor themselves.

Waterboarding is really a very minor thing. It is more psychological than actual physical torture. It is not like you are breaking bones or yanking out fingernails. The victim will not suffer any real long term damage from it and I can guarantee it is positively civilized compared to what Al Qaeda would do to a prisoner.

Personally, I do not see a problem with this interrogation technique when applied against terrorists like this. It seems to be more of a method to break down resistance like sleep deprivation rather than actual torture. I guess I equate actual torture to a more physically painful experience.

ESPECIALLY because the one attacked will likely be in such shock that we won’t be able to ring any REAL data out of him.

Isn’t that true of torture?

strangelet on April 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Given the fact that the techiques provided real intelligence that resulted in further captures of Al Qaeda leaders and avoided a disaster in Los Angeles, I would say that you have something wrong there.

If torture does not produce valuable results then waterboarding must not be torture. Because it produced results. Either that, or your premise is incorrect and torture may actually produce real information when applied judiciously.

Rape by definition is a malicious and brutal attack designed for the attacker’s pleasure, and thus should be well outside the boundaries of any SERIOUS interrogator’s venue.

Rape is also about power and control. Rape, torture and slavery all negate the free will of the victim.

ESPECIALLY because the one attacked will likely be in such shock that we won’t be able to ring any REAL data out of him.

Isn’t that true of torture?

So, do you have those answers to my responses yet?

Treach….I have a question for you.

Too bad, I’m stealing it.

If it is ok to mildly torture a captive to extract jackbauer style high value intell, would it be ok to mildly rape a captive to extract high value intell?
I mean..it wouldn’t kill them…probly wouldn’t even hurt much.
They will be fine physically afterwards.

Absolutely not.

Rape by definition is a malicious and brutal attack designed for the attacker’s pleasure, and thus should be well outside the boundaries of any SERIOUS interrogator’s
venue. Those who violate this do so for perverted reasons I don’t even want to know about, and any violations should be punished, ESPECIALLY because the one attacked will likely be in such shock that we won’t be able to ring any REAL data out of him.

No, simply no.

Well, somebody enjoys their lack or reading comprehension.

When you have to ask that question you have gone over the line.

No, YOU have. Over the line of common sense. Because you are mistaking the question. It is not how much water SHOULD we pour over their heads, it is how much water would be JUSTIFIED by it.

In other words, rather than talking about maliciously inflicting it on them, they are statingg that any amount of water would be JUSTIFIED by the crimes of the given waterboardees, so we are free to use as much as we need to get what we need.

When you think of revenge you do not perform waterboarding, it has become torture, a means of punishment more than interrogation.

in tat case, I think we are going to have to try about a dozen GIs from WWII who handed us the plans for the Ardennes offensive.

And by its very nature, torture of terrorists IS a facet of their punishment, due to its punishing nature. Sad but true.

When you start enjoying the process you are WAY over the line into torture.

Now, on this much, I am mostly on the same page, because you do NOT want sociopaths in charge of torture- they simply will never be able to stop themselves- but would it have been going “way over the line” if one of the soldiers who had lost a relative to KSM’s attacks perhaps have made a slight snicker as he got it?

By itself, no.

When you hate doing it but feel you must compromise your own morals, then it’s not torture, it’s saving lives.

Um, the driving force isn’t what makes it torture, it is the METHOD that does. But you are correct: that is the type of mentality you want.

Examine your motives when you contemplate such a procedure. If the motives seem unclear or getting satisfaction then stop.

If there is time allowed, than yes. But again, at what level should Shadenfruede be ground for stopping?

These kinds of procedures are the nuclear weapons of the interrogation world.

Obviously, you have never studied Russian interrogations.

You do not use them without a lot of soul searching, even if that soul searching has to be kinda rushed due to circumstances.

True. But that doesn’t mean you reading-comprehension problem is gone.

See what they are SAYING before jumping on them.

What makes the program/technique work is not telling the suspect what is happening so they cannot mentally prepare for it.

MSGTAS on April 29, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Except they did tell KSM. They even told him it wasn’t going to kill him.

Great analogy. The trick is to tilt the head back, eyes closed, and a put a hand towel over your face and you will get the impact.

What makes the program/technique work is not telling the suspect what is happening so they cannot mentally prepare for it.

A rational Muslim would willing accept consequences for a terrorist attack. He should have not attacked because he knew he could be captured. He also knew he would not get tortured as the muslims describe torture.

Hey, my shower pours water on my face everday…should I be logging this?

d1carter on April 28, 2009 at 9:34 PM

You’ve just answered why the libs think it’s so “inhumane”.

Drives me nuts reading that it is.

Accountability in government is in the present. When you throw together a bill that is labeled stimulus but the lion’s share does not create real jobs, then you’re not being accountable to people.

Second look at the United States of America!

I’m sure that if there had been an attack on Los Angeles, Nonfactor would’ve been among the first to congratulate the Bush administration on a job well shirked.

When you think of revenge you do not perform waterboarding, it has become torture, a means of punishment more than interrogation.

herself on April 29, 2009 at 4:40 AM

They didn’t do it for revenge. They did it to find out who was being targeted for mass murder next. They were meticulous in ensuring that their interrogation did not cross the line into torture. And they succeeded in getting information that saved lives. But your concern for KSM is touching.

55%? This means Obama and the Left are going to have to work harder to get more people repulsed by harsh interrogation

ToddonCapeCod on April 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Maybe a second unannounced flyby would increase sympathy for the terrorists.

So strapping someone to a rack while depriving them of oxygen and then threatening to do it again if they don’t answer your questions isn’t torture. That’s just being dishonest.

Nonfactor on April 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

I was unaware that the people who leapt from the World Trade Center to escape smoke inhalation were strapped to a rack.