I think this mainly has to do with recent court cases more than actual feelings of right and wrong. Personally, I'd gladly peel the skin off of someone if they knew something that would save American lives. But I'm very black and white on that kind of issue.
However, I do feel better knowing that the CIA is doing everything in it's power to thwart attacks against the US and our interests. It's very comforting to know that there are people out there willing to put the squeeze on someone just to make it so you can sleep at night safely.
Of course, one man's "torture" is another man's "technique". Sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, uncomfortable positioning, loud music, even subliminal messaging are all legit techniques in my book. Hell, even waterboarding make Khalid give up his terrorist cohorts within minutes. I know of not one case where waterboarding killed someone, so it's a legit technique to me as well.
However, there are others that claim that the only thing that's acceptable is simply asking nicely. Now, that's a start, however, I only ask a question twice. Third time, you're getting the techniques above until you give me the answers I'm looking for, not the answers I want to hear. Lie to me and you'll live the rest of your life dealing with my above mentioned techniques. It would be in your best interests to answer me truthfully the first time, otherwise, waking up in the morning in 40 degree temperatures does not make for a comfortable living. Hell, I'll even warn you about it. If you tell me the truth, your life will be comfortable. Lie to me and X will happen next.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree, and not because I have ethical objections to torture. I do, but it's beside the point.
In order to torture someone and not go nuts yourself, you have to dehumanize them in your mind. But far from giving you an advantage, that effectively blinds you to some of the most effective levers there is - the humanity of the client and their very human need to justify their actions to some authority.
Essentially, it makes it possible for them to mentally retreat. At that point, whatever you do to them is more about you having some wicked fun at their expense than it is about gaining intelligence.
Further, those who are attracted to using such techniques are usually not the people who are best suited to separating intelligence from random noise.
I know rather a lot about the arts of interrogation and torture, the interaction between interrogator and interrogated. Frankly, torture is the quickest way to find out exactly what the detainee thinks you want to hear.
In other words, it generates far more false information than actionable intelligence, and that gets the wrong people killed.
Do you think the FBI abandoned "hard" interrogations with phone books and rubber hoses simply because it was unethical? Under HOOVER?
PuhLEASE!
No, they use psychological techniques and subtle discomforts - the sort that don't actually cause the person to consciously realize they are under pressure, even though they add up to tremendous psychological stress.
Furthermore - ask any CIA operative who's had a routine debriefing - knowing what's happening doesn't matter a tinker's damn.
Torture is generally pretty useless. I mean, it CAN get you all kinds of data, it might be accurate data, but all the important targets will either be operating on a compartmentalized basis or will have been trained to resist torture for as long as possible, then "breakng" and feeding false or misleading information. Both, generally. That's what WE do.
The real diamonds come from repeated, patient, relentless questioning, where you are looking for the blank spots, the too-consistent story. You are also looking for things that the interviewee doesn't know they know, the things they don't realize are important.
Generally, no single interrogation client is going to have the full picture. In many cases, you want them to walk away with the feeling that they managed to blow smoke up your ass, while you put the picture together from many sources.
Sometimes drugs help. Sometimes, with some people, you can induce what amounts to a hypnotic state - but then you must be especially careful to not suggest what you want to hear.
It's an art as much as a craft, and while the option of brutality should never be far from the mind of the "client," in the end it's generally the "Good Cop" that gets the answers you need.
The widespread use of torture is, however, a very effective way to terrorize an entire population. This is generally the intent, it's certainly the effect on the scale we have been practicing it, and I'm sure it's discussed in Col. Aquino's manual on Counter-terrorism. No doubt it is still in use.
However, aside from the obvious ethical concerns, that approach only works - sort of - if you intend to establish a very, very pervasive police state.
Even then, the history of both Eastern Europe and Central and South America argues against the general productivity of such an approach. It is certainly no way to create a free and open democracy.
That was the stated goal, was it not? Hm. The means seem incompatible with that end to me.
You're a rare breed around here. A well thought out argument with reasonable facts and figures to back it up. :) But you do raise several valid points. A person like myself wouldn't be a good interrogator simply because my main concerns would be the information, not the way to get it.
Subtle and not so subtle ways of getting information reliably is the hallmarks of a good interrogator.
That being said, torture HAS gotten a lot of accurate information from Khalid Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind according to the press. Whether or not he provided that information as a result of his treatment or if he just got worn down over time is anyones guess, but there are reports that his information directly lead to the capture and thwarting of several terrorists and their plots.
Now, normally I would agree that torture doesn't lead to a lot of accurate intelligence. Most experts I've seen and read have agreed with that point. However, does there come a time when such theories are wrong? I imagine there are times when you try your normal stuff and it doesn't work and you're out of options. My only thought really on it is that since they don't adhere to the Geneva Conventions, terrorist plotters don't get Geneva protections.
There's even talk of shutting down Guantanamo Bay and moving prisoners to other military facilities. That accomplishes nothing more than to give a feel good effort towards who are calling for its closure rather than addressing torture practices.
Either way, I don't really lose a lot of sleep when people who are trying to kill me are leading uncomfortable lives at the moment.
However, as a free and open society, you have to ask yourself, how do you defend against those who want to kill you and get the intelligence you need in a timely manner? Sure, subtle pressure does work, however sometimes you simply don't have the time to work that technique.
Post a Comment