Obviously there has been debate in this arena lately. The new interrogaion manual was released to the public to be "transparent in their methods" (big mistake, but...). And the White House and certain congressmen have debated the definitionof Article 3 (GCPW)...and there has been some debate (and most relevant to me...as some of you may know) about a "grandfather clause" on prosecuting "war criminals" for their use of interrogation techniques used in the past. There has been some news coverage-- most disappointingly -- Fox News, which has turned this into a political debate (Left and Right) instead of covering how this is afffecting the troops in the field.
I have reams of articles and discussion from some of my lwayer friends and news articles on this subject, but will refrain from posting them here. Instead, I would solicit your opinion first.

So, my question is, what do you think of this debate and the outcomes? Should we use "alternative interrogation techniques" against some of our terrorist detainees?
Are the military and other interrogastors sufficiently protected from prosecution?
What should be allowed in interrogation of terrorsit suspects?

It has been proven over and over again that torture does not really work. The existing methods before the current mess were effective for military operations. The problem is the CIA, which has always been a problem and always will be. They should put it all back with the military and follow military procedures. The CIA is as waste of good money.

The debate is healthy because it shows just how close we keep coming to being as bad as “them.” Our intelligence failures are people based and have nothing to do with procedures.

I agree with your assessment of the Clowns In Action; however, the other part of your post is exactly the debate here. Yes, it's been published in various forms that torture does not work, and there's also testimony and evidence out there proving that torture does work. I say it doesn't matter, torture is NOT something we need to condone as a nation even if it works. BUT, what is torture? You see here is where all the politics and BS games come in. Because there is no middle ground here, it's either a "legal interrogation" or it's torture. That's the way the media is playing it. And I can tell you that what was "legal" in 1991 is not "legal" now....

Is treating a detainee the same way we treat our own recruits in boot camp torture? (rppearso can shut the hell up). See, we used to call that (in the bad old days) "pressure" not torture. And I tell you, the boot camp treatment did to detainees exactly what it did to recruits. Got them to immediately obey orders and indoctrinated them. It worked. Now, all those things are defined as torture. It's not my definition of torture, and probably not yours, Harry; but that is what is NOW defined as torture. Detainees are now better treated than our own troops.

The debate is centered upon Article 3 which reads in part that "no outrages against the personal dignity" of detainees will be commmitted. What the hell does that mean? Now, back in the bad old days, it didn't mean much, apparently. Vagueness was good. Now, not so good. Interrogators need to know exactly what this means-- we need a better definition. And that's some of what President Bush is attempting to do, but he keeps getting slammed by the courts and the media for promoting torture....This is one of the few times I agree with this president and I begin to understand why he and others who support him are becoming so frustrated with this kind of crap.

And finally, I agree with Harry again on the "people based" errors. A good interrogator will get the info smoothly and without resulting to torture. And I think this is the core of the issue. After Sep 11, 2001 good interrogators resulted to pressure tactics out of anger and frustration. Bad interrogators went to torture.

Maybe we should interrogate prisoners based on what we would have other countries do to our people. Torture should be anything that we do not want done to them. I know that this is a simplistic view but it does keep up with the times.

I consider terrorists criminals and not military opponents. I could never give them the credit for being soldiers. Again, that is a simplistic view but the only one I can defend from my point of view.

It is interesting how the debate seems to forget history and the ramifications of defying the current moral structure of the world. We are not an innocent people, nor are the other peoples of the world. No one has a claim to purity when it comes to these matters.

There is so much good in the worst of us.
And so much bad in the best of us,
That is hardly becomes any of us
To talk about the rest of us.

EDWARD WALLIS HOCH, d.1925 "Good and Bad"

quote:

Maybe we should interrogate prisoners based on what we would have other countries do to our people.

Well, my plan would be-- do what works! Problem is, this ain't the cold war and we face a very diverse enemy. There's no formula to work with here (yet, maybe one will evolve).

Is sleep deprivation "torture?" Give me a break.

No, but watching reruns of Baywatch would be!

quote:

Originally posted by PT:
Is sleep deprivation "torture?" Give me a break.

Yep. As a matter of fact, there's legal precedence-- IRA vs England, 1979. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and food and water deprivation were all labeled as torture.

Baywatch is still "legal".

And the "grandfather clause" was signed. DoD personnel can not be charged if, at the time, the interrogation technique was legal or "perceived to be legal" using a reasonable man test.

I'm with Prof. Dershowitz on this one

Alan Dershowitz, the civil libertarian defender of O.J Simpson, believes the law should sanction torture so it may be applied in certain cases, such as terrorist acts.

In a 60 Minutes report, Dershowitz tells Correspondent Mike Wallace that torture is inevitable. “We can’t just close our eyes and pretend we live in a pure world,” he says.

After the events of Sept. 11, with many al Qaida members in custody, Dershowitz says he wants to bring the debate to the forefront. He gave the “ticking bomb” scenario - a person refusing to tell when and where a bomb will go off – as an example of the type of case warranting torture.
____________
In most cases, admitedly, a lot of patience and sophisticated interrogation techniques will yield good information without resorting to torture. But if techniques like isolation, sleep deprivation, lying to the suspect, good cop-bad cop ploys, and a plethora of non-violent methods are all to be off limits because they are not nice, we might as well throw in the towel. (But I now think we can follow POW regs to out advantage).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PT,

Another little tidbit from the media that's pissing me off....

Several articles have stated that as "result of the Abu Ghraib investigations..." interrogation methods and training have been revised (to include the release to the public of our training manuals, smooth move that).

NONE of the people involved in Abu Ghraib (prosecuted and/or convicted) were interrogators. Only ONE (that I know of) of any of the cases of abuse involved a DoD interrogator.

And yet, they're taking all the shit for this....

Oh, this one's funny (I have doubts as to whether it's true, but it's still really funny).
I read in a highly respected newspaper that They are forcing Saddam Hussein the watch the South Park movie (in which he is portrayed as the devil's gay boyfriend...) Apparently that is the reason for his misbehaviour in Court...