Senate provision to allow indefinite military detention in US soil; reinstate torture as policy

[Cyn]

Riding the rail? Is that the newest interrogation technique? How does it work?

[Xno Kappa]

Whatever it is, I couldn't help but grab my balls in defense thinking about it.

[bechyni]

I think he means "taking one for the team". In that case I'm all game for it, I'll even test out this new "torture" method.

[Uzor]

Except the people who are often pro-torture love to use weasel words like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of espousing their love for torture which has been proven to not be as effective as it may appear. So the torture doesn't work but lets do it anyway because the terrorists are doing it!

It's always even more amusing because the people who embrace things like waterboarding are the same individuals that wouldn't have the stomach to watch someone be tortured.

That's ignoring Fox News of course. On Fox, getting tortured is spun to be like getting tickled.

Well, it's not so much that torture isn't as effective as it appears, it's more that people will say anything under torture, so you can't really use it as a reliable method to extract information.

[Avanarius]

Riding the rail? Is that the newest interrogation technique? How does it work?

Riding the rail (also called running out of town on a rail) was a punishment in Colonial America in which a man (rarely a woman) was made to straddle a fence rail (usually the triangular split-rail rather than the modern machine-milled) held on the shoulders of at least two men, with other men on either side to keep him upright. The victim was then paraded around town or taken to the city limits and dumped by the roadside.[citation needed] Intense pain came from the weight of the body resting on the sharp, narrow edge and injuries from the ride could, if the victim were stripped, cut the crotch and make walking painful. Alternatively, the term also refers to tying a person's hands and feet around a rail so the person dangles under the rail.

The punishment was usually a form of mob extrajudicial punishment, sometimes imposed in connection with tarring and feathering.[1] It was intended to show community displeasure with the victim so he either conformed his behavior or left.

Bah having to explain it makes it less funny.

edit* I lol'd at "rarely a woman"

[Cyn]

Bah having to explain it makes it less funny.

edit* I lol'd at "rarely a woman"

Whatever it is, I couldn't help but grab my balls in defense thinking about it.

Good instincts.

[kuronosan]

I find it hilarious how people advocate torture as if it really provides any information. Even if the person is as coward and caves quickly it doesn't mean they're telling the truth. Torturing them further won't accomplish anything.

I feel more like this is a way for the Senate to legalize the treatment of OWS protesters by turning them into "domestic terrorists".

[Churchill]

Depends on your definition of torture

[Yugl]

I find it hilarious how people advocate torture as if it really provides any information. Even if the person is as coward and caves quickly it doesn't mean they're telling the truth. Torturing them further won't accomplish anything.

I feel more like this is a way for the Senate to legalize the treatment of OWS protesters by turning them into "domestic terrorists".

If it's for the OWS protesters, why wolf piss then? They sit in their piss long enough to have adapted to that shit (And their own apparently!).

[Khamsin]

I find it hilarious how people advocate torture as if it really provides any information. Even if the person is as coward and caves quickly it doesn't mean they're telling the truth. Torturing them further won't accomplish anything.

I feel more like this is a way for the Senate to legalize the treatment of OWS protesters by turning them into "domestic terrorists".

Wouldn't interrogators ask questions to confirm their admissions? If some guy says "Yes, I planted a bomb and there's a plot to sabotage whatever!" then why not ask about details that you already know the answer to from other sources, to confirm what they are saying? If they can't provide you with those details, either they lied when they admitted their involvement, or they are withholding information, both of which (lying or withholding) would just enhance the interrogation even more.

If you make sure to vigorously interrogate them when admitting to things they are innocent of, then they'll learn that you don't want them to admit unless it's true. Interrogators are after the truth, even if it's that the person is innocent or that there is no plot. They don't want to hear false confessions and insincere confirmations of their suspicions. They aren't torturing them to make them say what they want them to say, in order to justify what's already been done to them, or to back up a course of action.

So, the most logical thing it would seem is to have a warm-up round where you interrogate them under suspicion for something you know they weren't involved in, or a false plot altogether. Yell at them, say "I know you're a part of this! I know you did it! Didn't you! We have proof, and if you lie, we'll give you a nice and thorough enhanced interrogation, even more enhanced than the one you're in right now! We've got your family in the next room, and if you don't give us the truth, we'll interrogate them next!" If they admit involvement, you know they're lying, and can proceed to enhance the interrogation further to show them admitting to a lie was the wrong thing to do, and that you want the truth, not what they think will make you happy.

...okay, so that last scenario might be a little over the top, but was just trying to cover the logic behind it, not trying to justify its use.

[Churchill]

Physical violence can be an effective tool to gain information in time-sensitive scenarios; results vary mainly on the level of commitment from the subject being interrogated though there are other tools outside of physical violence against the subject and of course cultural differences which can lead to information being more readily/less readily obtained.

Subject is always held accountable for information he gives as it is fact checked immediately, often with his presence.

[hey]

I was with you until this point...Jaywalkers...? Those mother fuckers are on a whole nother level!

Honestly, they should just be shot on sight.

[Uzor]

Wouldn't interrogators ask questions to confirm their admissions? If some guy says "Yes, I planted a bomb and there's a plot to sabotage whatever!" then why not ask about details that you already know the answer to from other sources, to confirm what they are saying? If they can't provide you with those details, either they lied when they admitted their involvement, or they are withholding information, both of which (lying or withholding) would just enhance the interrogation even more.

If you make sure to vigorously interrogate them when admitting to things they are innocent of, then they'll learn that you don't want them to admit unless it's true. Interrogators are after the truth, even if it's that the person is innocent or that there is no plot. They don't want to hear false confessions and insincere confirmations of their suspicions. They aren't torturing them to make them say what they want them to say, in order to justify what's already been done to them, or to back up a course of action.

So, the most logical thing it would seem is to have a warm-up round where you interrogate them under suspicion for something you know they weren't involved in, or a false plot altogether. Yell at them, say "I know you're a part of this! I know you did it! Didn't you! We have proof, and if you lie, we'll give you a nice and thorough enhanced interrogation, even more enhanced than the one you're in right now! We've got your family in the next room, and if you don't give us the truth, we'll interrogate them next!" If they admit involvement, you know they're lying, and can proceed to enhance the interrogation further to show them admitting to a lie was the wrong thing to do, and that you want the truth, not what they think will make you happy.

...okay, so that last scenario might be a little over the top, but was just trying to cover the logic behind it, not trying to justify its use.

The problem with that is if the person truly is innocent, but the interrogators are convinced the person is guilty, and accuse the person of lying when he says he don't know anything.

[hey]

The problem with that is if the person truly is innocent, but the interrogators are convinced the person is guilty, and accuse the person of lying when he says he don't know anything.

They would never torture an innocent person.

[Uzor]

In the same way they would never execute an innocent person?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So when Leon Panetta or Michael Hayden, whichever one, said enhanced interrogation techniques worked, they're lying?

[hey]

In the same way they would never execute an innocent person?

They would never even arrest an innocent person.

[Rhinox]

So when Leon Panetta or Michael Hayden, whichever one, said enhanced interrogation techniques worked, they're lying?

So when Colin Powell and John McCain says that torture doesn't work they're lying?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So when Colin Powell and John McCain says that torture doesn't work they're lying?

Do they have access to the same reports/1st hand knowledge?

[Rhinox]

Former secretary of defense and senior member of the senate armed services committee so I'd say yes.