This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Should we add something here about Vice President Cheney pushing to make this legal, and using the 24 scenario as his primary reason for doing so? After all, we came pretty close to this being Truth in Television...
YYZ: Too political. Do we really want to risk starting a Flame War?
Seth: How is that not under the forum tropes yet?
Ununnilium: Even though I agree with it, pulling out:
Of course, news stories from the last few years suggest that the US military really don't need any tips on how to mistreat prisoners...
...for the above reason.
I think that "(For a more in-depth examination of how interrogation is supposed to be carried out, see this declassified 1960s CIA manual.)" should be removed from the article (the italics are in the original). Section IX contains things that a reasonable person would probably consider torture, and even if he or she did not, he or she would almost certainly consider them unethical. These include techniques like sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, drugging, causing severe pain and/or threatening to do so, and confining a suspect in a very confined area, like an iron lung or water tank. In addition, this manual and similar ones produced by the military are referred to as The Torture Manuals, according to Wikipedia.
-I got a lot out of that CIA link. If it doesn't belong on this page, we can find a better place instead of just removing it. Good Cop Bad Cop perhaps - under the section of non-coersive techniques it gives step-by-step instructions for pulling that one off (but calls it "Mutt and Jeff").
No idea what this picture is supposed to convey. It's unreadable.
Silent Hunter: It's supposed to be a survey question, asking what kind of interrogation would work best on you, then listing a large number. It's too small, though.
The Nifty: Cut this: *** Technically speaking the Geneva Convention mightn't apply to them, if they where court in civilian dress they are spies under the Geneva Convention and subject to torture
As it's factually incorrect. Under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers in plain clothes are given the same rights as uniform wearing soldiers. Also, it's against the GC to torture anybody, spies or not. You are allowed to execute spies without a trial though.
Greenygal: Deleted— "*** Though as the one challenged that meant she had the choice of which duelling protocol to use. Manticorian duelling pistols are 10mm automatics (their normal sidearms use hyper-velocity darts) and the more usual protocol is 1 shot each before the master of the field asks if they wish to fire again. The other duelling protocol, which Honor chose, is shoot until you run out of bullets or your opponent falls down or drops their weapon. So she got to shoot him in the gut a few times and waited for him to drag his gun up almost to firing position before putting one between his eyes."
Because a) the other guy was going to choose the same protocol, for the same reason, and b) more to the point, this has nothing to do with interrogation.
Cut:
- In Paul Robinson's Willis And Friends, Willis wants to question a rapist about why he did what he did, but the guy keeps demanding a lawyer. He doesn't really care if the guy's statement is admissible in court, so they get the guy a lawyer, and the following scenario takes place:
- "Okay, Lucas, my name is Mark 144, I am a lawyer for the amusement park, and happen to be a member of the Common Law office, which means I am authorized to represent you for criminal defense. Would you like me to offer you representation?""Yeah.""Have you told them anything?""No.""Good. My recommendation to you is to say nothing.""Mark!""Denise, be quiet." He turns back to Lucas. "Lucas, are you listening?""Yeah.""The courts here are extremely unhappy about use of torture or pain to extract confessions. Even if it's done by a private party. If you are tortured or inflicted with torture or pain to say something, the police can't use what you say against you. It's treated as if you never said anything at all. Do you understand?""Uh yeah.""Let me repeat myself. If someone inflicts upon you any pain at all, even something as minor as pinching you with their fingers if you won't talk, the police aren't allowed to use what you say, are you sure you understand?""Yeah, I said I did."Mark turned to Willis and looked at him. Willis smiled. "I like lawyers who figure out how to get things done. Denise, grab a chair." He threaded the leash so Lucas would be sitting with the leash in one of the legs so he couldn't just up and run, and pushed him down. Mark moved his case off the counter, so it would be in front of Lucas, in case he needed it. "Now, look, I want some information out of you, and if you don't talk, I'm going to pinch you until you do.""Sir, I must advise you that if you do that to my client, his statement will not be admissible in court.""Thank you, Mark. So you heard me, do you talk or do I start pinching?""Lucas, don't say anything, he wouldn't dare."Lucas said nothing. Willis reached over and pinched Lucas on the arm. Lucas silently laughed at it, like he thought Willis was crazy to think that it would bother him."My God! Did you just willfully pinch him for the purpose of inflicting physical pain or suffering to obtain information?""Yeah, I did.""Lucas, as your legal counsel I am advising you that it is my opinion you are under direct infliction of torture in violation of law, and you could tell them anything, the police cannot use it.""Okay, what do you want to know?"
Twin Bird: What the hell is going on with this edit war over whether torturing a rapist is Squicky, and even whether he should be referred to as "he"? Jesus, rape is horrible, but...really...people can be nasty little fuckers, and Pay Evil unto Evil isn't a great policy even for rapists. The entry's been deleted entirely now, even though it seems appropriate...?
Ronin Aquila: I'll put the entry back in (unfortunately, in its "liberal" and "politically correct" form) so that people know about this awesome movie. But my stance remains firm: IT is a brutal and mindless animal that wilfully abandoned its ability to feel remorse for the suffering IT has caused ITS victims, and IT needs to be taught to FEEL the agony IT caused so that IT will know NOT to do so in ITS next life.
