"Interrogation at Guantanamo was left to untrained amateurs"

[BruceVC]

Oh Orwell.

 

'Advanced Interrogation techniques'

 

There's really nothing advanced about torturing someone. In fact it's a sub 100 IQ level approach to a situation. Either that or just some evil sickos getting their evil on.

 

Real advanced techniques would involve coercion akin to what Hanns Scharff became famous for.

 

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

 

Do us all a favor Bruce and please go read 'A Brave New World', '1984', and 'Animal Farm'.

 

Oh I have read 1984, it was a false prediction that never occurred. And Animal Farm is relevant, but the message from that book is also not relevant. The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda?  

 

But Vals I would love you to answer my question "  how would  you as an interrogator who needs to get vital confirmation around information get this confirmation " 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I do understand your point, you are saying can you gain pertinent information without using AIT. So my first point  would be you are dealing with people who are religious zealots and many of them are not highly educated, thats why terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are so appealing to them. They truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven

 

But if you read that Speigel link he talks about using the the "rapport building technique" . In the article he says 

 

"By engaging in a mental poker game with them, but consistently presenting them with facts and evidence of their guilt, by speaking their language -- both figuratively and literally -- which is something none of these private contractors for the CIA could do. For example, I questioned Salim Ahmed Hamdan, bin Laden's driver, in Guantanamo. I offered him tea, made it possible for him to call his wife -- those are things that had been promised to him, but the promises weren't kept. During the interrogations, I lay down next to him on the floor, and then we talked. That's classic "rapport building"

 

But I question how effective this is really to gain the information you need? And this applies to anyone who is prepared to kill for a cause. Suddenly relating to them and being friendly is going to make them betray their religion? I'm sure this works for some but not the majority

 

 

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization.

Edited January 27, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Zoraptor]

Ahh "Advanced Interrogation Techniques" or it's not torture cuz we call it something else.

 

The something else being Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, not Advanced.

 

I suspect that Bruce is getting a kick out of everyone parroting his (no doubt deliberate) mislabelling as if it were accurate.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I do understand your point, you are saying can you gain pertinent information without using AIT. So my first point  would be you are dealing with people who are religious zealots and many of them are not highly educated, thats why terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are so appealing to them. They truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven

 

But if you read that Speigel link he talks about using the the "rapport building technique" . In the article he says 

 

"By engaging in a mental poker game with them, but consistently presenting them with facts and evidence of their guilt, by speaking their language -- both figuratively and literally -- which is something none of these private contractors for the CIAA could do. For example, I questioned Salim Ahmed Hamdan, bin Laden's driver, in Guantanamo. I offered him tea, made it possible for him to call his wife -- those are things that had been promised to him, but the promises weren't kept. During the interrogations, I lay down next to him on the floor, and then we talked. That's classic "rapport building"

 

But I question how effective this is really to gain the information you need? And this applies to anyone who is prepared to kill for a cause. Suddenly relating to them and being friendly is going to make them betray their religion? I'm sure this works for some but not the majority

 

 

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization.

 

 

Its an interesting perspective to suggest that the  AIT  EIT were done to people who weren't actively involved in Al-Qaeda or  had a direct relationship to Bin Laden

 

The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post  some I would find it pertinent ?

Edited January 27, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

Ahh "Advanced Interrogation Techniques" or it's not torture cuz we call it something else.

 

The something else being Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, not Advanced.

 

I suspect that Bruce is getting a kick out of everyone parroting his (no doubt deliberate) mislabelling as if it were accurate.

 

 

My bad, yes I meant enhanced

 

Not sure how I got that wrong

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I do understand your point, you are saying can you gain pertinent information without using AIT. So my first point  would be you are dealing with people who are religious zealots and many of them are not highly educated, thats why terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are so appealing to them. They truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven

 

But if you read that Speigel link he talks about using the the "rapport building technique" . In the article he says 

 

"By engaging in a mental poker game with them, but consistently presenting them with facts and evidence of their guilt, by speaking their language -- both figuratively and literally -- which is something none of these private contractors for the CIA could do. For example, I questioned Salim Ahmed Hamdan, bin Laden's driver, in Guantanamo. I offered him tea, made it possible for him to call his wife -- those are things that had been promised to him, but the promises weren't kept. During the interrogations, I lay down next to him on the floor, and then we talked. That's classic "rapport building"

 

But I question how effective this is really to gain the information you need? And this applies to anyone who is prepared to kill for a cause. Suddenly relating to them and being friendly is going to make them betray their religion? I'm sure this works for some but not the majority

 

 

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization.

 

 

Its an interesting perspective to suggest that the AIT were done to people who weren't actively involved in Al-Qaeda or  had a direct relationship to Bin Laden

 

The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post  some I would find it pertinent ?

 

 

Is the government's very own report on the issue credible enough for ya?

 

 

Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I do understand your point, you are saying can you gain pertinent information without using AIT. So my first point  would be you are dealing with people who are religious zealots and many of them are not highly educated, thats why terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are so appealing to them. They truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven

 

But if you read that Speigel link he talks about using the the "rapport building technique" . In the article he says 

 

"By engaging in a mental poker game with them, but consistently presenting them with facts and evidence of their guilt, by speaking their language -- both figuratively and literally -- which is something none of these private contractors for the CIAA could do. For example, I questioned Salim Ahmed Hamdan, bin Laden's driver, in Guantanamo. I offered him tea, made it possible for him to call his wife -- those are things that had been promised to him, but the promises weren't kept. During the interrogations, I lay down next to him on the floor, and then we talked. That's classic "rapport building"

 

But I question how effective this is really to gain the information you need? And this applies to anyone who is prepared to kill for a cause. Suddenly relating to them and being friendly is going to make them betray their religion? I'm sure this works for some but not the majority

 

 

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization.

 

 

Its an interesting perspective to suggest that the  AIT  EIT were done to people who weren't actively involved in Al-Qaeda or  had a direct relationship to Bin Laden

 

The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post  some I would find it pertinent ?

 

 

For one example, look up the plight of the Uyghurs who were kept and are being kept at Guantanamo.

 

 

Oh I have read 1984, it was a false prediction that never occurred. And Animal Farm is relevant, but the message from that book is also not relevant. The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda?  

 

But Vals I would love you to answer my question "  how would  you as an interrogator who needs to get vital confirmation around information get this confirmation " 

 

 

I think much of those books was lost on you if you think 1984 is 'a false prediction that never occurred', and 'The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda? '

 

As for how would I get vital information? Well, that really depends on the situation, the information that needs to be acquired, and who has it (do they even have it?). About the absolute last thing I'd do is put a person I want information from in a situation where they have nothing left to lose, like most of those who have been kept at Guantanamo Bay.

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Oh I have read 1984, it was a false prediction that never occurred. And Animal Farm is relevant, but the message from that book is also not relevant. The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda?  

 

But Vals I would love you to answer my question "  how would  you as an interrogator who needs to get vital confirmation around information get this confirmation " 

 

 

I think much of those books was lost on you if you think 1984 is 'a false prediction that never occurred', and 'The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda? '

 

As for how would I get vital information? Well, that really depends on the situation, the information that needs to be acquired, and who has it (do they even have it?). About the absolute last thing I'd do is put a person I want information from in a situation where they have nothing left to lose, like most of those who have been kept at Guantanamo Bay.

 

 

 

 

 

The books were  probably lost on me, as far as I know they symbolise life under Communism? They definitely don't reflect life under a Capitalist\Western society?

 

Why else are they suppose to mean or tell ?

[Valsuelm]

Yea... lost on you they apparently were, as they were not exactly about life under communism. They most certainly reflect life in western society, as well as eastern, and all other modern societies.

 

You're guilty of doublespeak in this very thread.

 

Here's a decent documentary discussing some Orwellian aspects of modern media in the U.S.. It's a bit bias in some senses (very critical of republicans/conservatives but fails to levy the same deserved criticism against democrats) , but it's still very much worth a watch as there's info in it you won't find discussed in many other places.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvgnkNuTpXk

[Meshugger]

Dystopian books on how the human condition makes tyranny, torture and authoritarianism is a slippery slope for any civilization can be easily debunked as irrelevant because current ideologies are completely immune to it.

 

Bruce, Bruce, you're really trolling now

[BruceVC]

Yea... lost on you they apparently were, as they were not exactly about life under communism. They most certainly reflect life in western society, as well as eastern, and all other modern societies.

 

You're guilty of doublespeak in this very thread.

 

Here's a decent documentary discussing some Orwellian aspects of modern media in the U.S.. It's a bit bias in some senses (very critical of republicans/conservatives but fails to levy the same deserved criticism against democrats) , but it's still very much worth a watch as there's info in it you won't find discussed in many other places.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvgnkNuTpXk

 

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak

 

The definition of doublespeak is  

 

" the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" 

 

 

How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak

 

The definition of doublespeak is  

 

" the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" 

 

 

How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

 

 

By calling torture "enhanced interrogation", perhaps?

 

Anyways, could we please get back to the subject of hand, which is that people are trusting an organization to make the right call regarding torture and its justifications which is so gravely incompetent that they tortured their own informants (plural!) for information, and so puppy-kickingly evil that they detained a mentally handicapped person to use footage of him crying to blackmail his relatives?

Edited January 28, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak

 

The definition of doublespeak is  

 

" the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" 

 

 

How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

 

 

By calling torture "enhanced interrogation", perhaps?

 

Anyways, could we please get back to the subject of hand, which is that people are trusting an organization to make the right call regarding torture and its justifications which is so gravely incompetent that they tortured their own informants (plural!) for information, and so puppy-kickingly evil that they detained a mentally handicapped person to use footage of him crying to blackmail his relatives?

 

 

Okay well a debate around semantics is not doublespeak, but I'll let that go so we don't go around in a pointless discussion

 

As for your main point. AIT  EIT are not used anymore by the  CIA so the reality is no one is trusting the CIA based on its past usage of this practice. People trust the CIA because it has done and does do very good work at protecting the USA both historically and nowadays, like  finally killing Bin Laden and preventing attacks on US soil by extremists 

 

So in other words the mistake of using EIT should not enough to say the CIA is a redundant and ineffective US agency

 

I'm not familiar with your comments about the handicap man and the informants being tortured, can you provide some links if possible ? 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

As for your main point. AIT  EIT are not used anymore by the  CIA so the reality is no one is trusting the CIA based on its past usage of this practice. People trust the CIA because it has done and does do very good work at protecting the USA both historically and nowadays, like  finally killing Bin Laden and preventing attacks on US soil by extremists 

 

So in other words the mistake of using EIT should not enough to say the CIA is a redundant and ineffective US agency

 

 

 

So you're saying they should be let off the hook for this most grievous, wasteful and incompetently done human rights violation, because they say it helped prevent attacks on US soil? Let me remind you, this is an agency so bad at doing spy stuff, they're waterboarding their own allies because they can't tell them from terrorists and are getting caught red-handed when trying to tamper with evidence of their wrongdoings. If they were any good at spycraft, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no evidence of it. (Okay, actually, if they were any real good, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they hadn't been as incompetent as to try solving problems by mass torture, but that's beside the point.)

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with your comments about the handicap man and the informants being tortured, can you provide some links if possible ? 

 

 

 

I already did so.

 

 

 

 

The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post  some I would find it pertinent ?

 

 

Is the government's very own report on the issue credible enough for ya?

 

 

Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees.

 

 

Repeatedly.

 

 

 

Page 16, footnote 32.

 

 

(Note: it's page 16 in the actual report, which means page 42 of the pdf, if I remember correctly.)

Edited January 28, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

As for your main point. AIT  EIT are not used anymore by the  CIA so the reality is no one is trusting the CIA based on its past usage of this practice. People trust the CIA because it has done and does do very good work at protecting the USA both historically and nowadays, like  finally killing Bin Laden and preventing attacks on US soil by extremists 

 

So in other words the mistake of using EIT should not enough to say the CIA is a redundant and ineffective US agency

 

 

 

So you're saying they should be let off the hook for this most grievous, wasteful and incompetently done human rights violation, because they say it helped prevent attacks on US soil? Let me remind you, this is an agency so bad at doing spy stuff, they're waterboarding their own allies because they can't tell them from terrorists and are getting caught red-handed when trying to tamper with evidence of their wrongdoings. If they were any good at spycraft, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no evidence of it. (Okay, actually, if they were any real good, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they hadn't been as incompetent as to try solving problems by mass torture, but that's beside the point.)

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with your comments about the handicap man and the informants being tortured, can you provide some links if possible ? 

 

 

 

I already did so.

 

 

 

 

The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post  some I would find it pertinent ?

 

 

Is the government's very own report on the issue credible enough for ya?

 

 

Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees.

 

 

Repeatedly.

 

 

 

Page 16, footnote 32.

 

 

(Note: it's page 16 in the actual report, which means page 42 of the pdf, if I remember correctly.)

 

 

Okay , I am going to concede you are right about the handicap man and bad treatment of informants by the CIA because I took a look at that 520 page document but I didn't read it, I'll be perfectly honest. Large parts of it are also blacked out which also makes its difficult to understand , did you read that whole document...seriously the whole document?

 

I hope you didn't read it just on my behalf? I prefer  referencing links or websites when it comes to these types of debates. The reality is I have limited time so when I ask for credible links I'm not being lazy but to be honest very few people will read through a pdf of that length just to understand a different perspective

 

But I do appreciate the effort you have put into this discussion and look forward to the next one

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Okay , I am going to concede you are right about the handicap man and bad treatment of informants by the CIA because I took a look at that 520 page document but I didn't read it, I'll be perfectly honest. Large parts of it are also blacked out which also makes its difficult to understand , did you read that whole document...seriously the whole document?

 

 

It's indexed fairly well, and the search function is one's friend in such endeavors.

[Valsuelm]

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak

 

The definition of doublespeak is  

 

" the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" 

 

 

How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

 

You really need to ask, after people have already called you out for it?

 

Try calling spades spades Bruce.

 

'Enhanced/Advanced Interrogation Techniques' - ambiguous terminology to disguise the fact that torture is used.

 

vs.

 

Torture - descriptive term telling us what was done.

 

Doublespeak if there ever was any.

[BruceVC]

 

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak

 

The definition of doublespeak is  

 

" the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" 

 

 

How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

 

You really need to ask, after people have already called you out for it?

 

Try calling spades spades Bruce.

 

'Enhanced/Advanced Interrogation Techniques' - ambiguous terminology to disguise the fact that torture is used.

 

vs.

 

Torture - descriptive term telling us what was done.

 

Doublespeak if there ever was any.

 

 

Nah, we will have to agree to disagree 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak

 

The definition of doublespeak is  

 

" the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" 

 

 

How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

 

You really need to ask, after people have already called you out for it?

 

Try calling spades spades Bruce.

 

'Enhanced/Advanced Interrogation Techniques' - ambiguous terminology to disguise the fact that torture is used.

 

vs.

 

Torture - descriptive term telling us what was done.

 

Doublespeak if there ever was any.

 

 

Nah, we will have to agree to disagree 

 

 

This isn't something to disagree about any more than the sun being the primary source of heat on earth is something to disagree about.

 

As I've said before. You should get a job at a ministry of propaganda, if you don't already have one. You're a natural.

[JadedWolf]

 

As I've said before. You should get a job at a ministry of propaganda, if you don't already have one. You're a natural.

 

 

Now now, what you mean is minister of information.

 

Edited January 28, 2015 by JadedWolf

[Valsuelm]

Sadly, it looks like Bob is on his way out.