10 'torture' techniques blessed by Bush

[sammsky1]

As proper details of exactly what happened inside Gitmo emerges, I cant help but be bewildered how the worlds supposed beacon of civilization and modernity, in its fight for freedom, democracy and righteousness, could carry out these heinous acts of terror on men who were not even proven guilty of any crime.

History will rightly condemn the people responsible in the right way. Its just utterly shocking. It makes me quiver with anger just thinking about it.

The horror the horror.

Ten 'torture' techniques blessed by Bush Administration

In this August 1, 2002 memo to John Rizzo, the acting general counsel of the CIA, the US Department of Justice approves 10 methods of "enhanced interrogation" on the suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah (U.S. Central Command/AP) The memo details interrogation techniques to be used on Abu Zubaydah

These 10 techniques are: (l) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.

You have informed us that the use of these techniques would be on an as-needed basis and that not all of these techniques will necessarily be used.

The interrogation team would use these techniques in some combination to convince Zubaydah that the only way he can influence his surrounding environment is through co-operation. You have, however, informed us that you expect these techniques to be used in some sort of escalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique.

Moreover, you have also orally informed us that although some of these techniques may be used more than once, that repetition will not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions. You have also informed us that Zubaydah sustained a wound during his capture, which is being treated.

Based on the facts you have given us, we understand each of these techniques to be as follows.

Attention grasp

The attention grasp consists of grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator.

Walling

For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall. The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall.

During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash. To further reduce the probability of injury, the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall. You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action.

Facial hold

The facial hold is used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face. The fingertips are kept well away from the individual's eyes.

Facial slap

With the facial slap or insult slap, the interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. The hand makes contact with the area directly between the tip of the individual's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe. The interrogator invades the individual' s personal space. The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.

Cramped confinement

Cramped confinement involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual's movement. The confined space is usually dark. The duration of confinement varies based upon the size of the container. For the larger confined space, the individual can stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to sit down. Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours; for the smaller space, confinement lasts for no more than two hours.

Wall standing

Wall standing is used to induce muscle fatigue. The individual stands about four to five feet from a wall, with his feet spread approximately to shoulder width. His arms are stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall. His fingers support all of his body weight. The individual is not permitted to move or reposition his hands or feel.

Stress positions

A variety of stress positions may be used. You have informed us that these positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body, Rather, somewhat like walling, they are designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue. Two particular stress positions are likely to be used on Zubaydah: (1) sitting on the floor with legs extended straight out in front of him with his hands raised above his head; and (2) kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45 degree angle. You have also orally informed us that through observing Zubaydah in captivity, you have noted that he appears to be quite flexible despite his wound.

Sleep deprivation

Sleep deprivation may be used. You have indicated that your purpose in using this technique is to reduce the individual's ability to think on his feet and, through the discomfort associated with lack of sleep to motivate him to cooperate. The effect of such sleep deprivation will generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep.

You have informed us that your research has revealed that, in rare instances, some individuals who are already predisposed to psychological problems may experience abnormal reactions to sleep deprivation.

Even in those cases, however, reactions abate after the individual is permitted to sleep. Moreover, personnel with medical training are available to and will intervene in the unlikely event of an abnormal reaction. You have orally informed us that you would not deprive Zubaydah of sleep for more than eleven days at a time and that you have previously kept him awake for 72 hours, from which no mental or physical harm resulted.

Confinement with insects

You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him, You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact face a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him.

Waterboarding

Finally, you would like to use a technique called the "waterboard" in this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet.

The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning.

The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout.



You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than 20 minutes in anyone application.

We also understand that a medical expert with SERE experience will be present throughout this phase and that the procedures will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm to Zubaydah. As mentioned above, Zubaydah suffered an injury during his capture. You have informed us that steps will be taken to ensure that this injury is not in any way exacerbated by the use of these methods and that adequate medical attention will be given to ensure that it will heal properly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6111109.ece

 

[Moriarty]

Many of these methods were used by the Gestapo between 1933 and 1945. At the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1946, a memorandum from Heinreich Muller, Gestapo chief after Heydrich's assassination in 1942, authorised similar tortures as described above on "terrorists" - the Nazis used this word too - to force confessions and other information.

 

[sammsky1]

Many of these methods were used by the Gestapo between 1933 and 1945. At the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1946, a memorandum from Heinreich Muller, Gestapo chief after Heydrich's assassination in 1942, authorised similar tortures as described above on "terrorists" - the Nazis used this word too - to force confessions and other information.

Thanks for the context. I was thinking that when I read this article. The hypocrisy is just crazy. And to think, millions justified this in thier consciousness. Its too scary to even try and comprehend.

 

[utdalltheway]

I need to read more into this but my 1st reaction was that someone should be going to jail for a long time for this.

 

[Fitzjames]

Torture has always existed and always will.
It is morally wrong and in military terms counter-productive.
Mostly it is just done as a kind of battlefield revenge.
The older we get....the less naive we get.
If at say 18 years old, I had been told that the Americans used it in Vietnam....I would have said "no way".
I would of ourse have believed it of the Viet Cong.

Will anyone go to jail? In a word......no. Except of course hillbilly "trailer trash" like Lindie England, who made the mistake of getting herself photographed.

 

[Chris H]

Let's not start with this just like the Nazis business. It undermines real criticism of both groups.

 

[GAngel]

Many of these methods were used by the Gestapo between 1933 and 1945. At the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1946, a memorandum from Heinreich Muller, Gestapo chief after Heydrich's assassination in 1942, authorised similar tortures as described above on "terrorists" - the Nazis used this word too - to force confessions and other information.

Many of these methods were used by the british, the french, the italians, the dutch etc etc.

Sensationalist journalism at its finest

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Many of these methods were used by the Gestapo between 1933 and 1945. At the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1946, a memorandum from Heinreich Muller, Gestapo chief after Heydrich's assassination in 1942, authorised similar tortures as described above on "terrorists" - the Nazis used this word too - to force confessions and other information.

These techniques were also used the NKVD and later KGB in the Soviet Union. Especially the wooden bedbug box, which would be horrible. The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn details all of their preferred methods. One of the worst being four large guards holding each limb down while the interrogator slowly crushes your nuts with his foot.

 

[Anderson Searl]

If Bush wasn't American...

 

[Chris H]

Torture has always existed and always will.
It is morally wrong and in military terms counter-productive.
Mostly it is just done as a kind of battlefield revenge.

This is something that too many people still don't get. We've watched 24 for seven years, and every time Kiefer Sutherland twists a knife in someone's shoulder, they tell him the truth and help to move the narrative along to the next plot point. Doesn't actually work that way in real life.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their legal staffs indulged in a bit of revenge. We will pay a high price for it.

 

[GAngel]

This is something that too many people still don't get. We've watched 24 for seven years, and every time Kiefer Sutherland twists a knife in someone's shoulder, they tell him the truth and help to move the narrative along to the next plot point. Doesn't actually work that way in real life.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their legal staffs indulged in a bit of revenge. We will pay a high price for it.

I'm not sure where you got that. The only thing correct in 24 is that EVERYONE will eventually tell you everything they know.

Has nothing to do with torture it's psychology. There's a reason they do psych profiles on spec forces and break them before they put them out in the field. Once you've been broken you become essentially immune to fear making it take much longer to crack you again but you will eventually.

The milgrim experiment was a huge factor in it's continued use.

 

[Chris H]

Not sure if you've seen 24, but torture generally gets the bad guy to spill his guts in a very timely manner, often immediately. The bad guy also never gives out wrong information that might have Kiefer Sutherland combing the docks near the Santa Monica pier while the nuclear shipment arrives in Oakland, or hunting down a lead in Pakistan that takes three weeks and leads to a dead end.

People will "crack", but that doesn't mean they'll give you the information that you seek. Often they have nothing to tell you. And if they are prepared for torture they can have a variety of stories ready that are convincing enough to get you to stop, but don't actually get you much. In the Special Forces there is always the danger of the captured soldier revealing the location of other soldiers in the field, tactics, troop movements, equipment, etc. Information about these things is more readily actionable - and verifiable - than when dealing with a group like al Qaeda. From what I've read, professional interrogators say that torture is not an effective means of eliciting good intelligence.

The milgrim experiment was a huge factor in it's continued use.

Huh? I thought the the Milgram experiments were about how willing people were to inflict pain on another person, as long as they had been told to do so by an authority figure. Nothing in there about getting information from someone who's being tortured.

 

[GAngel]

Not sure if you've seen 24, but torture generally gets the bad guy to spill his guts in a very timely manner, often immediately. The bad guy also never gives out wrong information that might have Kiefer Sutherland combing the docks near the Santa Monica pier while the nuclear shipment arrives in Oakland, or hunting down a lead in Pakistan that takes three weeks and leads to a dead end.

People will "crack", but that doesn't mean they'll give you the information that you seek. Often they have nothing to tell you. And if they are prepared for torture they can have a variety of stories ready that are convincing enough to get you to stop, but don't actually get you much. In the Special Forces there is always the danger of the captured soldier revealing the location of other soldiers in the field, tactics, troop movements, equipment, etc. Information about these things is more readily actionable - and verifiable - than when dealing with a group like al Qaeda. From what I've read, professional interrogators say that torture is not an effective means of eliciting good intelligence.

Huh? I thought the the Milgram experiments were about how willing people were to inflict pain on another person, as long as they had been told to do so by an authority figure. Nothing in there about getting information from someone who's being tortured.

You've never taken a psych course in your life clearly

 

[Chris H]

You've never taken a psych course in your life clearly

I have. Please explain the relevance of the Milgram experiments to the effectiveness of torture as a means of gathering information.

Unless of course you're pulling my leg.

 

[GAngel]

I have. Please explain the relevance of the Milgram experiments to the effectiveness of torture as a means of gathering information.

Unless of course you're pulling my leg.

Well since you clearly got all your information on it from wiki as per your expected reply.

The milgrim experiment was used by governments as a sounding board to see what type of reaction an authority figure could get from a subject.
The torturer being the authority figure became psychologically dominant over his subject. The subject immediately puts down some of the mental barriers errected over a life time making it easier to gain information.

Obedience breeds trust, gaining the slightest amount of trust(domination) lowers the amount of time it requires to get information. Pyscological domination is far more powerful than physical domination that's why torture evolved in most western nations. Milgrim proved this point conclusively. The people who were doing the torturing were actually being done far worse than those they tortured.

There was no longer any need to physically harm an individual.

 

[Chris H]

Well since you clearly got all your information on it from wiki as per your expected reply.

I didn't, but thanks for insulting my intelligence.

The torturer being the authority figure became psychologically dominant over his subject. The subject immediately puts down some of the mental barriers errected over a life time making it easier to gain information...Obedience breeds trust, gaining the slightest amount of trust(domination) lowers the amount of time it requires to get information. Pyscological domination is far more powerful than physical domination...

I doubt that a terrorist being tortured by someone he believes to be part of the Great Satan is going to lower his psychological barriers. And if psychological dominance is more powerful, why the need to torture then? Unless you're saying that the torture breeds psychological dominance. Although I would suggest that there are better ways of achieving this.

Milgrim proved this point conclusively. The people who were doing the torturing were actually being done far worse than those they tortured.

Seeing as the "prisoners" were just actors, and were not injured, that makes sense. No idea how that relates to real torture though. Are you saying that the real victims in Guantanemo were the CIA fellow doing the waterboarding? Perhaps some counseling could be arranged.

And now I think you're pulling my leg. What a strange wind-up, GAngel.

 

[GloryHunter07]

Torture and detention without trial trouble me greatly.

 

[GAngel]

I didn't, but thanks for insulting my intelligence.I doubt that a terrorist being tortured by someone he believes to be part of the Great Satan is going to lower his psychological barriers.Why the need to torture then? Unless you're saying that the torture breeds psychological dominance. Although I would suggest that there are better ways to do so.Seeing as the "prisoners" were just actors, and were not injured, that makes sense. No idea how that relates to real torture though. Are you saying that the real victims in Guantanemo were the CIA fellow doing the waterboarding? Perhaps some counseling could be arranged.

And now I think you're pulling my leg. What a strange wind-up, GAngel.

It's not a wind up although i am playing devils advocate a bit .
It relates to real torture in that it has evolved from a physical form in large part due to this study and others like it.

You don't need to crush someone's nuts anymore to get what you need. Now you can mentally abuse him call it legal and say its not torture.

 

[Chris H]

You don't need to crush someone's nuts anymore to get what you need. Now you can mentally abuse him call it legal and say its not torture.

You never did need to crush someone's nuts. And from what I've read, mentally abusing the detainee is also not a particularly effective means of getting actionable intelligence. Being a skilled interrogator is not about using different methods of psychological abuse.

As for your playing devil's advocate, I still don't think your argument made any sense. Anyone else have an opinion on that?

 

[peterstorey]

As for your playing devil's advocate, I still don't think your argument made any sense. Anyone else have an opinion on that?

Bloke's an idiot Chris, you're wasting your time.

 

[GAngel]

You never did need to crush someone's nuts. And from what I've read, mentally abusing the detainee is also not a particularly effective means of getting actionable intelligence. Being a skilled interrogator is not about using different methods of psychological abuse.

As for your playing devil's advocate, I still don't think your argument made any sense. Anyone else have an opinion on that?

I really don't think you know what you're talking about on this topic.

 

[GAngel]

Bloke's an idiot Chris, you're wasting your time.

haha still mad that i slam your rediculous posts.

3 degrees how many do you have now?
1088X posts and counting on a utd board. Maybe you're the one with a mental disease.

 

[Chris H]

I suspect you're right Peter, but I'll respond to the post below yours for the hell of it.

From Two problems with torture - it's wrong and it doesn't work
by Stuart Herrington, retired Army colonel and expert in interrogation and counterinsurgency operations

I and other authentic practitioners of the interrogation art respect our adversaries, however wrong we may deem their cause. We know that obtaining information from a captive who is motivated by his beliefs, his country, his honor or perhaps by the very human desire to live a full life with his family, is an elusive task that requires a patient, systematic approach.

One has to "go to school" on each captive. Who is he? Can I communicate with him in his language? What are his core beliefs? His loves? Hates? Fears? Where do his loyalties lie? Does he have a family, an inflated ego, perhaps some other core vulnerability? Does he have a hobby or some passion that might get him talking? What do we know about his activities before he fell into our hands? What about his religion? Sect? Tribe? Culture? Or the history of his movement? What have other captives in our hands said about him? Did he have documents or a computer that were seized with him? What drives this unique individual?

Professional interrogation is thus a developmental process, requiring extensive preparation. It requires in-depth assessment of the prisoner, all complemented by a healthy measure of guile, wits and patience. Seasoned interrogators know that an important first step is to disarm one's adversary by resorting to the unexpected. Treat a captured general or colonel with dignity and respect. Better yet, treat a sergeant like he is a colonel or general.

In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality. Patience was essential. We rejected the view that interrogators could merely "take off the gloves" and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our "guests." This notion was uninformed and counterproductive, not to mention illegal, and we made sure our chain of command understood that bowing to such tempting theories would result in bad information.

Persuasive? I'd always thought so, and it certainly worked for us in contingency after contingency in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. But when I explained these immutable principles to an auditorium of young Army interrogators last year, one reaction puzzled me. "Sir," a young soldier queried, "that 'tender-loving-care approach' sounds all well and good, but it takes time. What do we do when the chain of command sends out a requirement and says they need the information by the end of the day, and that thousands of lives may depend upon it?"

The very question tells us that intelligence professionals have failed to educate their commanders that detainee interrogation is not like a water spigot. "Give the inquisitors the freedom to push the envelope of brutality and good information will follow" seems to have become the watchword since 9-11.

It also tells us that our young soldiers take away lessons from today's pop culture. Self-styled "experts" on interrogation frequently cite the "ticking bomb scenario" (featured on shows like "24") to justify the Jack Bauer-like tormenting of a prisoner. According to this construct, it is necessary and acceptable to torture in the name of saving an American city from "the next 9-11." This has a magnetic appeal to legions of Americans, among them future soldiers. But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career.

 

[GAngel]

I suspect you're right Peter, but I'll respond to the post below yours for the hell of it.

Anyone can refute anything it's called lobbying. Just like you can use stats to prove anything is possible.

Copying and pasting someone view that isn't even a study doesn't exactly count as evidence. It is what it is a point of view. Like yours, like mine.

 

[Chris H]

Colonel Herrington also gave a very good interview with Terry Gross on NPR. Streaming audio available here.

One more.

From What's Wrong With Torturing a Qaeda Higher-Up?
May 16, 2004
Michael Slackman in the New York Times


Darius Rejali, an associate professor of political science and the author of the book "Torture and Modernity: Self, Society and State in Modern Iran," said his studies show that torture is ineffective as a tool for gathering information. "My position is there is no empirical evidence to suggest that this works, at least in the way that people claim that it does in the war against terrorism," Mr. Rejali said.

Mr. Rejali said he has studied Algeria's violent struggle in the late 1950's for independence from France. He said he pored through the archives and found no evidence that the French were able to harvest a significant amount of valuable intelligence through their use of torture. He said he came to the same conclusion after studying the Nazis' use of torture throughout Europe. "The Gestapo wasn't getting a whole hell of a lot when it tortured resistance people," he said.

Indeed, a study by Human Rights Watch found that torture of criminal suspects often produces inaccurate information. In 1999, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for the group, issued a report, "Confessions at Any Cost: Police Torture in Russia," which documented widespread use of torture among the Russian police. The report quoted Boris Botvinnik, a university student in Moscow who confessed in 1996 to a murder and robbery after his vision was severely damaged from repeated bouts of near asphyxiation. "I wanted to save what was left of me," Mr. Botvinnik said.

Mr. Lohman said, "That is the problem: If you torture me, I am going to tell you whatever you want to get you to stop. In Iraq, a man named Saddam Saleh Aboud told The New York Times that after being hooded and handcuffed naked, doused with water, threatened with rape and forced to sit in his own urine over 18 days at Abu Ghraib prison, he was ready to confess to anything. "They asked, 'Do you know the Islamic opposition?' '' Mr. Aboud recalled in an interview in Baghdad. "I said yes." At one point, Mr. Aboud said: "They asked me about Osama bin Laden. I said, 'I am Osama bin Laden. I am disguised.' "

But if torture doesn't work, why is it so widely employed? The answer, Mr. Rijali and others say, is that it does work as a tool of intimidation, if not intelligence gathering. In authoritarian countries around the world, where leaders struggle to assert their authority, the threat of torture is often enough to keep some kind of social order and inspire informers to come to the government with information - as it did in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

 

[GAngel]

You do that every piece of information would be cross checked right.

The israeli's are famous for banning torture but are the best at getting anything they want from prisoners.

 

[Moriarty]

Many of these methods were used by the british, the french, the italians, the dutch etc etc.

Sensationalist journalism at its finest

They certainly did. It would be hard to find a nation that hasn't used torture in one form or another against its enemies.

 

[Chris H]

Anyone can refute anything it's called lobbying. Just like you can use stats to prove anything is possible.

Copying and pasting someone view that isn't even a study doesn't exactly count as evidence. It is what it is a point of view. Like yours, like mine.

Yes GAngel, your views on the effectiveness of torture, and of the skills required to be an interrogator, are just as valid as those of someone who has actually done the job successfully for 30 years. I can see that. Along those same lines, have you considered the Transfer Forum? Perhaps you could offer Mr. Ferguson your learned opinion on what players he should purchase. I'm sure he would be grateful for your "point of view".

But if that doesn't suit you, try the General Forum. Talk rubbish there and they'll love you for it, whereas here we just think you're an idiot. And you might not be, of course. It's just that you're doing a very convincing imitation of one at the moment.

 

[Raoul]

The new administration has been clear about going in a different direction regarding these types of methodologies, and are quite right to not pursue legal avenues against the practices. The professionals who work in these fields (interrogators etc) were carrying out policies that were deemed appropriate and suitable by the Bush administration. Given the track record of how some released Gitmo detainees have gone back and resumed their terrorist professions, I don't feel any moral compulsion to retroactively criminalize the work of professionals who were working within assigned parameters to get information out of people. That being said, i think the Administration has made the right call in ending these practices as a pretext to improving relations with certain countries. I'm still amused by the double standard of these types of threads given that real torture continues to take place in many countries around the world but never gets attention of Red Cafe threads. Lets talk about the torture in Iran, certain Arab countries, India, China, North Korea, and many other countries and you'll see what real torture is.

 

[Moriarty]

It does work as a tool of intimidation. To use the Gestapo as an example, their use of torture was as a weapon of terror to subdue those people thought to be enemies of the state. A confession obtained under torture was a confession nonetheless and it mattered little to the Gestapo. Getting military information was something different. Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas, an SOE agent, was captured by the Gestapo and tortured for days on end but gave away nothing of value. Details of the methods used can be found in his autobiography, "The White Rabbit." It details the horrors endured by other resistance fighters who remained silent or gave the Gestapo false information to stop the pain.

The real experts at collecting intelligence for the Germans were the Abwehr under the command of Admiral Canaris, who was an implacable foe of the Nazis and the Gestapo and SD in particular. If you want to read a good book on wartime intelligence, both Allied and German, "Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave-Brown is very informative as is M.R. D. Foot's book on the SOE in France.

 

[PTME]

If Bush wasn't American...

...Europeans would love him.

 

[Nistelrooy10]

It's not a wind up although i am playing devils advocate a bit .
It relates to real torture in that it has evolved from a physical form in large part due to this study and others like it.

You don't need to crush someone's nuts anymore to get what you need. Now you can mentally abuse him call it legal and say its not torture.

I still don't get how that experiment is one of the key reasons why torture is used. There is nothing there linking them together.

 

[GAngel]

I still don't get how that experiment is one of the key reasons why torture is used. There is nothing there linking them together.

You're getting caught up on the researchers purpose of the study (study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison). Milgrim had already done the same study more than 10 years prior. What he proved conclusively is that you can convince someone to do something they would never regularly do without putting a gun to there head in essence. From a military standpoint the study showed that psychological torture is far easier to use than physical violence.

Now every developed nation says they ban physical torture because they know its not usually the most effective method. But keeping someone awake for 4 days nothing illegal about that in most people eyes.

As an aside some of the people who used in his program suffered massive emotional damage even though they found out after it was just a test. "Milgram - "It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.""

Eg: I threaten to kill your family in front of you
or
I actually kill your family in front of you
Which situation would make you more willing to tell me the information I need.

 

[Nistelrooy10]

You're getting caught up on the researchers purpose of the study (study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison). Milgrim had already done the same study more than 10 years prior. What he proved conclusively is that you can convince someone to do something they would never regularly do without putting a gun to there head in essence. From a military standpoint the study showed that psychological torture is far easier to use than physical violence.

Now every developed nation says they ban physical torture because they know its not usually the most effective method. But keeping someone awake for 4 days nothing illegal about that in most people eyes.

As an aside some of the people who used in his program suffered massive emotional damage even though they found out after it was just a test. "Milgram - "It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.""

Eg: I threaten to kill your family in front of you
or
I actually kill your family in front of you
Which situation would make you more willing to tell me the information I need.

Good example there. The thing is, some of the things they used are not exactly psychological torture IMO, no matter if they try to pass it off as "discomfort." Sitting in a cramped space is not discomfort, it is painful and clear physical torture. Same with sleep deprivation or electrocution which they used at abu ghraib.

 

[GAngel]

Good example there. The thing is, some of the things they used are not exactly psychological torture IMO, no matter if they try to pass it off as "discomfort." Sitting in a cramped space is not discomfort, it is painful and clear physical torture. Same with sleep deprivation or electrocution which they used at abu ghraib.

Don't get me wrong i think it's horrible and inhumane. When we do things like that we're no better than animals.

 

[Chris H]

You're getting caught up on the researchers purpose of the study (study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison).

I think you're confusing Milgram with the Stanford prison experiment. Milgram wasn't testing response to captivity. His "captives" were actors.

From a military standpoint the study showed that psychological torture is far easier to use than physical violence.

No. Convincing a civilian to be more cruel than one might think is entirely different from getting a prisoner - one who has sworn to destroy you - to betray his comrades. Both Milgram and Stanford showed how willing people are to inflict inhuman treatment. They show nothing about people's willingness to give up important information. None of them had information to give, under torture or otherwise.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

The new administration has been clear about going in a different direction regarding these types of methodologies, and are quite right to not pursue legal avenues against the practices. The professionals who work in these fields (interrogators etc) were carrying out policies that were deemed appropriate and suitable by the Bush administration. Given the track record of how some released Gitmo detainees have gone back and resumed their terrorist professions, I don't feel any moral compulsion to retroactively criminalize the work of professionals who were working within assigned parameters to get information out of people. That being said, i think the Administration has made the right call in ending these practices as a pretext to improving relations with certain countries. I'm still amused by the double standard of these types of threads given that real torture continues to take place in many countries around the world but never gets attention of Red Cafe threads. Lets talk about the torture in Iran, certain Arab countries, India, China, North Korea, and many other countries and you'll see what real torture is.

And why do you think that might be Raoul?

I hope you're not suggesting that the vast majority of the Caf takes a great deal of pleasure from ranting and raving about the relatively trivial actions of the big bad United States of America and aren't in the least bit interested in the fate of real torture victims in other countries.

Because if you are, then that would obviously be very unfair. Oh that would be very unfair indeed.

 

[GAngel]

I think you're confusing Milgram with the Stanford prison experiment[/URL]. Milgram wasn't testing response to captivity. His "captives" were actors.No. Convincing a civilian to be more cruel than one might think is entirely different from getting a prisoner - one who has sworn to destroy you - to betray his comrades. Both Milgram and Stanford showed how willing people are to inflict inhuman treatment. They show nothing about people's willingness to give up important information. None of them had information to give, under torture or otherwise.

The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments it started in the early 60's you're specifically referring to one part of the study.


This conversation seems to be going over your head. If you're still in touch with your psych prof ask him to give it a go for you. Science is knowledge. Using someone else's knowledge to perfect your own is standard practise. Next time i'll just post that experiments were done that showed etc etc etc.

 

[peterstorey]

This conversation seems to be going over your head. If you're still in touch with your psych prof ask him to give it a go for you. Science is knowledge. Using someone else's knowledge to perfect your own is standard practise. Next time i'll just post that experiments were done that showed etc etc etc.

Don't make a bigger cnut of yourself than you already have.

 

[GAngel]

Don't make a bigger cnut of yourself than you already have.

As usual nothing but useless posts. Twat.