for al-Libbi, what interrogation tactics would you condone?

[INDIA]

Let's pretend that we live in a parallel universe and our President and media tell the truth. Al-Libbi really is 3rd ranking in Al-Qaeda, really is a terrorist mastermind, and really has murdered innocent people.

Most importantly, he has information on future terrorist attacks, and possibly where Bin-Laden himself is.

If he won't talk voluntarily, would harsh interrogation tactics, or even torture be justified to save lives? (this is probably a moot point considering the Pakistani government has him)

Discuss

[Atman]

1. First, thaw him out and re-animate him

You won't get a word out of al-Bernie, er, Libbi, while he's all dead like that.

[jayfish]

2. I Would Condone...

tactics there are legal within the borders of the USA.


THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THEN MEANS!


Jay

[kedrys]

3. Start with the comfy chair

and go from there.

[Frederik]

4. Treat him humanely

and ask him questions.

[Atman]

5. How would you know this?

You've never been accused of "knowing" something, when you didn't have a clue what the person was talking about?

I want to know how the interogators KNOW he has "information." It reminds me of the witch trials...burn her at the stake, and if she lives, she's a witch. Kinda the same principle. We know he must know something. But he says he doesn't. Therefor, if we beat him senseless for day, put electrodes up his ass and clamps on his balls while we're ripping out his fingernails, and he STILL says he doesn't know anything, then, well, maybe he was innocent.

Absurd as that is, in reality THAT doesn't even work. It has been shown time and time again that under such duress people will confess to damn near anything to stop the pain.

Bottom line: I don't care "what it would take." We don't torture. It doesn't work. It only builds more ill will. It is barbaric. If the CIA was doing its job, which I beleive it actually IS doing better than anyone at BushCo dares admit, then they know where UBL and all these guys are at any given moment. Remember, us civilians can go online and call up a satellite image of our homes that allows us to count the pimples on your sunbathing neighbors' ass....but the GOVERNMENT only hass access to blurry old black and white photos, a la Colin Powell's?

I don't think so.

[INDIA]

6. Once again...

Assuming that he really IS 3rd ranking member of a terrorist organization, in my parallel universe, then he definitely has valuable information. I'm also assuming that being a religious extremist and not a common criminal, he would be adverse to giving up intel simply by being asked or offered a deal.

[Atman]

8. In that case, lock him up and say good-bye.

If he is THAT high up, he isn't going to give away a thing for any reason. We have intel guys in the field, in the air, soldiers everywhere, lots of leads to follow, considering we were in on most of it in the first place. So, lock the fucker up, say good-bye, and bring him is bread and water every day.

And then go after the sixth #3 man.

[INDIA]

11. Good response n/t

[Djinn]

16. I thought it was a really scary response

"lock 'em away forever" is generally not in accordance with liberal democracies. No evidence, no charge NO imprisonment.

[Atman]

21. I agree...but the poster framed the question as if there were PROOF

I did the same thing you did...I posted an honest response first, saying that torture just wasn't cool, and didn't work. I was told no, that wasn't the question...

I am assuming the original question would arrise if the CIA had been listening in on a phone conversation with Al Libbi wherein he was heard to say "I'll be dropping by Usama's later tonight with the plans for the next attack." And they captured him fifteen minutes later.

Again, the poster deliberately framed the question to filter out responses like my first one, and yours to me. We're supposed to be answering from a position of certainty of the guys guilt. Somehow.

[Djinn]

22. even in the case of total and utter guilt

if there's charge that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt they should be released.

terrorism is a buzz word not a crime - charge and convict people for murder, conspiracy to committ murder, kidnapping, etc people shouldn't be charged with "terrorism" or for connections to "terrorism"

but I agree that the OP kind of only wants one answer

[Djinn]

10. the guy in my sig line was arrested in Pakistan

and after interogation and torture by the ISI and CIA he still didn't have anything to tell them, back in Australia he was jailed in one of Victoria's most notorious prisons and kept in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, after his relase his phones were all bugged and he was watched 24/7 yet stil the only thing they've come up with is a "confession" gained in Pakistan with no lawyer present.

If a naive guy in the wrong place at the wrong time like Jack isn't giving up anything usable after torture then a hardened and committed Al Qaeda leader certainly wont - so why throw away rights the rights decent societies have been based on for a few hundred years.

[oasis]

7. When captures of "high ranking" Al Quida guys are announced, my

bullshit detector blows a gasket.

Why would our guys compromise "sources and methods" if this was really a person of value?

The "capture" is just a Bushista PR move to (a) boost morale or (b) a smokescreen of the recent Blair/Bush news about their predisposition to invade Iraq.

[INDIA]

9. Parallel Universe!!!

Perfect World! Parallel Universe! Truthful Government and Media!
I'm not talking about our current reality. This is a huge IF type of question obviously, so assume that you aren't being lied to.

[classof56]

12. First of all, welcome to DU, India3.

As to interrogation tactics (torture), we are talking about using it on people who would die for the cause and find glory in doing so. I'm thinking maybe any amount of torture is not going to elicit the information you suggest Al-Libbi might have, and he becomes another martyr for the cause to rally around as the terrorist base grows. I'm sure the Pakistani government probably has no problem with torture, but if we as a society condone and institutionalize such ugliness, then we diminish ourselves and can no longer call ourselves civilized.

Just My Humble Opinion.

Tried Old Cynic

[INDIA]

13. Thanks...

I've been around for a while, I just rarely post. Cheers.

[Djinn]

17. The Pakistani government has no more or less qualms about torture

than the US government (and my own weasely government who seem to have no problem with their citizens being locked away in Gitmo for over three years with no charge)

that whole "first they came for" thing could sure do with being updated, after they've finished going after random Arabs and Muslims who do you think might be next?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

18. the answer you seem to want is

"a little bit of torture" - I really hope the majority here disagree

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[INDIA]

20. Serves me right

for not having 1000 posts. I really liked some of the above responses, your post was absolutely worthless. I never wanted anyone to say they condoned torture. I asked a question and waited for answers. Oh and by the way, my opinion? I think that psychological interrogation techiniques (Loud music, sleep deprivation, generally being uncomfortable) is perfectly fine in small doses. I went through worse pledging a fraternity.

[Djinn]

23. your fraternity

probably didn't keep you locked in prison in a foreign nation, in solitary confinement and tell you your family were dead.

the rather large difference between fraternity crap (and to an Australian all that shit seems highly bizarre but that's another thread) and what's happening in Gitmo is that you're not there against your will and you're not there indefinetly - or incomunicado.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.