Hacker News Reader

Comment by leroy_masochist | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't say that any of these techniques are "basic/standard", and I used to work in the field.

You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them.

In my opinion the question is the extent to which it's OK to play with people's psychology through isolation and misinformation, while still giving them 3 hots and a cot. The important thing to note here is that you can still damage people this way if you take it too far; solitary makes people go crazy especially when they're being fed false info about what's going on outside the walls.

Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. We're not going to beat it out of them, but how far are we willing to go? Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion.

View on HN

> Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads.

According to the report, "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.

>Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system?

Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option.

> This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion.

there is no conversation to have. Only charges (of crimes against humanity which torture is) to bring in.

> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option.

None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this. OTOH, torture is subject to a universal prohibition under international law independently of the status of the tortured person, whether a protected person under the any of the Geneva Conventions, a regular criminal suspect in a domestic court system, or any other status that may or may not exist.

>> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option.

>None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this.

One way or the other it is mentioned in various places through the Conventions. In particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention :

for internal conflict

" The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. "

for international:

"It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

"Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads."

Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Honest question. I see comment after comment after comment in this thread that indicates the commenters are unbelievably frightened of terrorism, to the extent that they're willing to sanction anything, even acts that they admit are otherwise reprehensible, to prevent it. Why are apparently intelligent people so frightened of it?

I'm just not seeing a lot of comments in this thread saying that the commenters sanction anything to prevent terrorism.

The condemnation of torture seems to be far more widespread here.

The "anti" side is far more prevalent, but the "pro" side is significantly more present than the "not at all" I'd expect/hope for.

> Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"?

Great question, and one we should always keep in mind. The death toll from terrorism on US soil since 9/11 is indeed very low. That said, the people plotting against us are intelligent and adaptive and wish to do us harm. If they succeed, they might destroy the free society which we've built for ourselves.

Put another way, I'm scared of the physical consequences of a nuclear weapon going off in midtown Manhattan and even more scared of what would happen to our society in the wake of it. You think we'd be having these conversations about which techniques may or may not be torture if there were half a million dead in NYC and the entire tri-state region were irradiated?

Remember the Cold War, when the threat wasn't that someone might figure out a way to smuggle a small weapon into NYC, but that we'd have fifteen minutes' warning before NYC was subject to multiple megaton-class detonations, along with every other major city in the country?

There isn't even any evidence that the threat of nuclear terrorism is credible. Nukes aren't something you pick up at the local Safeway on your way home from the daily jihad. Compare to 30 years ago, where the threat was absolutely, 100% credible. Literally hundreds of missiles ready to go at a moment's notice. One bad decision or bad hangover away from a billion deaths. And yet, we weren't having debates like this then.

That's not to say that the US was all innocent and pure. But at the very least, torture was secretive, hidden, not defended in public as being a worthwhile and justifiable act.

And then combine all that with the simple fact that torture doesn't even work. All it does is make their friends angry. Do you really think that torturing suspected terrorists reduces the chances of a future terrorist nuclear detonation in Manhattan? I don't see how.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to point out that those hundreds of missiles and hundreds of nuclear warheads are still there and still ready to go at a moment's notice and we are still one person's bad decision or bad hangover away from total annihilation. We just manage to pretend it's not there.

What do you mean we weren't having debates like this then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

Planned and carried out in secrecy and universally decried afterwards. When it came to light, the President more or less wanted the CIA's head on a pike. Quite different from ongoing secret-but-not-secret torture with a ton of defenders in the public eye and two Presidents who either defend it or try their best to ignore it.

I feel like they've already done that far more effectively than they probably dreamed. Look at what's happened to the US after 9/11 and tell me we're still adhering to our principles and possess any moral high ground in the world. This report is a pretty obvious indication that the powers that be have given up on following the rules.

They won. They won when the US gave itself the license to enter into a perpetual state of universal war, three days after 9/11.

Look at what the US has done. Really, look at all the things it has done -- the surveillance, the drone strikes, the infiltration of civil protests, the use of military equipment by the police force, the lies to justify the war in Iraq, the lies to justify the torture, the violations of international human rights, the targeted killings of "enemy" US citizens, the re-definition of every single one of these words -- and then tell me how the US has upheld its values against terrorism.

Then look at countries like Iceland where the nation apologizes over a single justified death at the hands of a police officer, or Norway where after a killing spree and bomb attacks the first consideration by government officials is not about how to punish the murderer, but how to guarantee due process for someone evidently guilty of such heinous crimes.

The United States are not the good guys. I'm sorry, but you're not. No matter how much you want it to be true.

You're cherry picking examples. Every country in the world has done horrible things. I'm certainly not excusing the torture the US has committed, but it's not alone in the world.

The intelligent people who support the government actions aren't afraid of specific terrorist acts. They're afraid of what a failure to stop terrorist movements could lead to. I imagine there were a lot of people sitting in the cafes of Rome who said: "I can't believe you think those germanic barbarians could possibly ever pose a threat to us!"

And of course, it doesn't help that the folks who are captured are mostly objectively bad people. There are some people who can muster a lot of moral outrage for the rights of bad people, and there are ones who can't. This isn't a new phenomenon.

That really doesn't answer my question at all. I asked why so many people are terrified of terrorism, and all you tell me is that they're afraid of some nebulous future. Well yes, obviously they're afraid of the potential future, as it would be pretty odd if they were afraid of the past. But why does terrorism get so much emphasis compared to other potential dangers?

Partly it's the immediacy. In the long term, China poses a threat to American hegemony, but they're not actively trying to blow things up at this very moment. The other part is the narrative. Environmental disaster should rank higher in peoples' minds, but people are intrinsically drawn to narratives that involve other people. Terrorists are like comic book villains as far as narrative goes. Not only do they behead people, but they brutally oppress women!

Terrorist groups are nothing like the barbarians that eventually brought down Rome, and I think you know it.

You've spent this entire thread making poor excuses for completely irrational behaviors and trying to justifying sickening, ineffective actions on the part of US personnel.

Just stop.

> Terrorist groups are nothing like the barbarians that eventually brought down Rome, and I think you know it.

No, I don't know it. Care to explain it to me?

> Terrorist groups are nothing like the barbarians that eventually brought down Rome, and I think you know it.

I beg to differ.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868419/Thrown-roof-...

> You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them

Can you give examples? Do they work against hardened interogees? Do they involve threats of violence?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com