Text 11252, 127 rader
Skriven 2009-05-18 20:39:06 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BOB ACKLEY
Ärende: Re-examining PR Ploys
=============================
-



DD>   A couple months ago we had a fairly spirited discussion on 
DD>   interrogation techniques after I posted an article by 
DD>   actual people from the field who did not think that 
DD>   torture to get information works well. 

JF>   You mean that public relations piece where they claim none of the
JF>   gov's techniques have been "scientifically tested" but in the same
JF>   breath they turn around and claim what does work?  

DC>>  Torture has long been discredited as a reliable 
DC>>  interrogation technique.

JF>   Nope, only claims have been made by a few hand picked people.

BA>   The 'few handpicked people' are the ones *supporting* 
BA>   torture as a legitimate interrogation tactic.  

   Baloney.  It wasn't until Obama took office that a few select
individuals 'came forward' to provide propaganda to make Bush and co the
scapegoat in an obvious PR ploy to support Obama and placate terrorists
lying in wait here and elsewhere.



BA>   Experienced, professional interrogators don't 
BA>   support the practice.

     Oh I see.   All those who 'chat' with prisoners are experienced...
those who use harsher methods are not experienced.   Bullshit, Bob.
If a simple chat or interview produced the positive results PR people
claim, they wouldn't have to resort to harsher methods.   Wake up.




BA>   In point of fact the *logs* of the torture interrogation of
BA>  'Detainee 063' at Guantanamo reveal that he didn't give 
BA>   them much of anything...

    Last I heard, this sort of thing was classified.  Where are you
getting your information from?



DC>   You are either going to get false answers or, at best,
DC>   the false answers that you want.

JF>   They say a person will tell you what you want to hear 
JF>   under torture,  so if that person knows the truth, they 
JF>   will tell you, because that is what you want to hear.
JF>   Easy math, Dan.

BA>   That person may or may not know the truth...

   And in the event they don't know no method will produce it,
including you 'chat' approach to interrogation.



BA>    ...and in any case that person is going to tell the 
BA>   sadistic psychopath...

   You're reverting to prejudice and name calling and have no idea what
sort of people you are referring to.   Of course, at this point that's
your only option.  If you can't argue your points, throw mud at our
guys.  Thanks, Bob.



BA>  ...questioning him what he thinks that sadistic psychopath
BA>   wants to hear.  Whether that is the truth or not is immaterial,
BA>   the victim will say whatever he (or she) has to say to get the
BA>   torture to stop.

    Including telling the truth.  And if they know they truth, they will
reveal it.  After all, they will say anything to get the "torture" to
stop.  Correct?   Explain how this negates telling the truth.



DC>   After all, do you really believe all those witches who
DC>   confessed to witchcraft really were witches?

JF>   First, you are comparing hideous acts of torture with enhanced 
JF>   interrogation methods (waterboarding, etc)  It's like you're
JF>   comparing a slap in the face with a beating with a lead pipe.

BA>   At least four victims of that 'enhanced interrogation'
BA>   by your sadistic psychopaths *DIED* as a direct result
BA>   of that 'enhanced interrogation.'

    Document that claim please.  Then document your silly "sadistic
psychopath" claim.  So far all you've done is parrot the assumption.

    Soldiers who kill during battle do not 'love to murder' just because
they shoot at the enemy.  Intel people are not psycho's...just because
the get tough with prisoners.  This is all a partisan mud throwing
assumption with nothing to support it but more assumptions.



BA>   There's a very good reason that the CIA ordered the videotapes
BA>   that were made of some of its 'enhanced interrogation' sessions
BA>   destroyed -

    Sure, to make sure sensitive intel doesn't fall into the hands of
our enemies foreign or domestic and to protect the identities of CIA
personnel.   This amazes you?



BA>   Plus if any had ever been made public the American people 
BA>   would see for themselves just what kind of 'people' 
BA>   are being hired to 'defend' them.

    Since you don't know a thing about the people who have to deal with
these thugs, you're just blowing the air around.



---
 *   *
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)