Torture!

[walkerguy]

(List largely in thanks to Krezack)

 

The recalcitrant subject of an intelligence interrogation must be "broken" but broken for use like a riding horse, not smashed in the search for a single golden egg.

...interrogation is essentially a battle of wills in which the turning-point is reached as the subject realizes the futility of his position. It usually develops in three tactical phases: a) breaking the cover story; b) convincing the subject that resistance is pointless and acquiescence the better part of valor; and c) getting active cooperation.

 

More on CIA philosophy and process

CIA search

 

Policies on torture techniques allowed by US officials are very strict and have a requirement of not causing permanent physical damage. I don't defend the CIA, but to go around claiming it randomly tortures people is idiotic. Even in the cases it does authorise torture methods, do you really think it's a field agent that carries it out?

 

Supposedly there are about 14 CIA operatives in entire world who are authorised to carry out the interrogation techniques which border on torture. Some of the forms:

 

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to a bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).

6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

7. Sensory Deprivation: Can be inflicted by immobilizing individuals in small, soundproof rooms and fitting them with blacked-out goggles and earmuffs.

 

Sensory Deprivation

Sensory Deprivation experiences

CIA search

Edited April 1, 2008 by walkerguy

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think any one of them could potentially be torture, depending on how it was applied. Some (like waterboarding) must surely always be torture. I don't see what it is people think torture will accomplish that regular interrogation techniques can't. People who interrogate for a living are very good at what they do. It smacks of laziness and posturing to me.

[Gorth]

Where is the "No" option?

 

Ah well, once they admit to being witches, we can burn them.

 

Whatever happened to the research into chemical solutions?

[walkerguy]

Witches? Are there witches in Australia?

If no is yur answer, dont vote!

[Gorgon]

I voted for 'wedgie'

[SweetiePea]

It's all completely Middle Ages to me. So much for thinking that our intelligence and wisdom has progressed ever so much from that of our "ignorant" ancestors...

[Moatilliatta]

It's all completely Middle Ages to me. So much for thinking that our intelligence and wisdom has progressed ever so much from that of our "ignorant" ancestors...

They have, that you still find it distasteful doesn't mean that they haven't progressed.

I'm personally against any form of torture as well.

 

Supposedly there are about 14 CIA operatives in entire world who are authorised to carry out the interrogation techniques which border on torture

There is nothing there that "borders" on torture, all of it is torture if it is meant to help in extracting information. Unless you want to argue that some of that doesn't bring physical or mental pain.

[Sand]

I constitute torture as any purposeful act that one takes against the other that inflicts physical and mental pain and anguish. The CIA and our military tortures people. Plain and simple. Is torture bad? Of course it is, but it is useful in extracting information from those who seek to do us harm. There are no good guys in the war on terror.

[Moatilliatta]

You need to put some purpose into that definiton, sand, otherwise me kicking you in the shins would count as torture i.e. something like "An act of indusing physical or mental pain meant to extract information or a confession". It should probably be widened somewhat as it could be argued that torture is used for other purposes than just info or confession extraction.

[dan107]

It's all completely Middle Ages to me. So much for thinking that our intelligence and wisdom has progressed ever so much from that of our "ignorant" ancestors...

They have, that you still find it distasteful doesn't mean that they haven't progressed.

I'm personally against any form of torture as well.

 

Supposedly there are about 14 CIA operatives in entire world who are authorised to carry out the interrogation techniques which border on torture

There is nothing there that "borders" on torture, all of it is torture if it is meant to help in extracting information. Unless you want to argue that some of that doesn't bring physical or mental pain.

 

Yes, there absolutely are things that border on torture. If you were to adopt a blanket definition of torture as any action that elicits compliance through physical or mental pain, then your boss threatening to fire you if you don't do what he tells you would fall under that definition. The fact of the matter is that there is a wide, wide spectrum of things that you can do to a person to compel them to act a certain way, and some are more brutal than others. Where exactly you draw the line and call it torture is subjective opinion, and is thus pointless to argue about.

 

What can be argued is about is the fact that certain groups and organizations will do things that are more brutal than others. And it is an absolute fact that the CIA uses some of the most humane interrogation techniques in history. Seriously how can you compare waterboarding, which does no permanent damage to things like chopping off people's hands, gouging out their eyes, or simply shooting them in the back of the head? I mean what is it exactly that you people would like the CIA to do? If you say that they are not allowed to apply ANY mental or physical pressure, how are they to carry out their job of obtaining information from the sort of people that they have to deal with? Let's hear some alternatives, not just criticisms.

 

There are no good guys in the war on terror.

 

There are rarely "good" or "bad" guys in any war, but in there are more brutal and less brutal ways of doing things. Think about it this way -- if you were to be held prisoner by either the CIA or the terrorists which would you choose? Guantanomo Bay, with the prospect of getting waterboarded, or some shack in the middle of Iraq, with the prospect of getting your head cut off?

[Walsingham]

Aside from the fools who used it in the CIA I've never met any professional, police or Army (above the most basic recruits) who regards torture as anything other than wrong.

 

It's not a case of "It's bad, but if only it wasn't." It's a case of it being completely pointless. The quality of information gained under torture is zero. If you want to get anything useful from people you have to talk it out of them. Read Sgt Chris Mackey's "The Interrogator's War" for more on this if you're interested.

 

If any of you wannabe James Bond types think I'm seeing things through rose tinted spectacles, just read some of the stuff which came out of the declassified confessions of Apartheid agents in South Africa. They tried it, and it was total b*****cks.

[dan107]

Aside from the fools who used it in the CIA

 

Thank god they have someone as smart as you to tell them how to do their job.

 

I've never met any professional, police or Army (above the most basic recruits) who regards torture as anything other than wrong.

 

Well if you've never met them, then they don't exist. I'm sure you're drawing on a background of extensive personal experience in the intelligence community here, right?

 

It's not a case of "It's bad, but if only it wasn't." It's a case of it being completely pointless. The quality of information gained under torture is zero. If you want to get anything useful from people you have to talk it out of them. Read Sgt Chris Mackey's "The Interrogator's War" for more on this if you're interested.

 

If any of you wannabe James Bond types think I'm seeing things through rose tinted spectacles, just read some of the stuff which came out of the declassified confessions of Apartheid agents in South Africa. They tried it, and it was total b*****cks.

 

"Talk it out of them", huh? Just curious, how exactly do you envision that? If you ask them a question, and they say no, what then? Apologize for being rude and ask them again more nicely?

Edited April 2, 2008 by dan107

[samm]

missing the most important option... Hell No.

[Musopticon?]

And I thought you actually had something to back youself with in the Alpha Protocol section...Walshingham provided a book, one actually worth reading(if you can believe a person from Teh Internets), on the subject and he can personally attest for army professionals, having served for a time.

 

Now, what have you got? I mean, besides being smart alec.

[dan107]

And I thought you actually had something to back youself with in the Alpha Protocol section...Walshingham provided a book, one actually worth reading(if you can believe a person from Teh Internets), on the subject and he can personally attest for army professionals, having served for a time.

 

Now, what have you got? I mean, besides being smart alec.

 

What sort of evidence is necessary? All I'm saying here is that:

 

1) The CIA is one of the most humane covert intelligence agencies that ever existed, when compared to other similar outfits. And:

2) By and large, the tactics used by the CIA against their prisoners are much more humane than those used by the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan against theirs.

 

Do you really need me to provide detailied links to methods of torture that are a lot more brutal that waterboarding? Which one of those points do you disagree with exactly?

 

I'm still confused as to where the rest of you are coming from. From what I can gather, your entire collective point seems to be that waterboarding is not "nice". Ok, no arguement there. But it gets far far worse than waterboarding, and the CIA aren't doing it just for kicks. They're doing what they're doing to try and prevent American casualties. I ask again, what specifically should they do if the subject refuses to cooperate, and they are not allowed to apply any kind of mental or physical pressure? Seriously, let's hear some ideas.

Edited April 2, 2008 by dan107

[Moatilliatta]

Yes, there absolutely are things that border on torture. If you were to adopt a blanket definition of torture as any action that elicits compliance through physical or mental pain, then your boss threatening to fire you if you don't do what he tells you would fall under that definition. The fact of the matter is that there is a wide, wide spectrum of things that you can do to a person to compel them to act a certain way, and some are more brutal than others. Where exactly you draw the line and call it torture is subjective opinion, and is thus pointless to argue about.

You do have a slight point so I'll change my definition: "An act of intentionally inducing significant and permanent physical or mental scarring meant to extract information or a confession"

A boss threatening to fire an employee wouldn't fall under that definition, also my definiton only mention acts meant to extract info or confessions, acts of forcing others to do your bidding by intentionally inducing significant and permanent physical or mental scarring should be included in a completely correct definiton. That wasn't my point though, I had two:

1) Torture isn't just inflicting pain as there has to be a purpose for the pain.

2) There is indeed a definite point where a person would say that it is indeed torture that is used. This is because torture isn't a vague concept like baldness can be. Also while the definition could be subjective instead of objective, there does indeed seem to be a very specific definition of torture that most people in the western world would agree upon, you dismissing the definition as pointless doesn't mean it is. Also I'm not arguing that the ones that I try to put forth are in any way full proper definitions of torture but are merely meant to illustrate the beforementioned points

 

What can be argued is about is the fact that certain groups and organizations will do things that are more brutal than others. And it is an absolute fact that the CIA uses some of the most humane interrogation techniques in history. Seriously how can you compare waterboarding, which does no permanent damage to things like chopping off people's hands, gouging out their eyes, or simply shooting them in the back of the head? I mean what is it exactly that you people would like the CIA to do? If you say that they are not allowed to apply ANY mental or physical pressure, how are they to carry out their job of obtaining information from the sort of people that they have to deal with? Let's hear some alternatives, not just criticisms.

No the CIA doesn't use some of the most humane interrogation techniques in history as many interrogations are made completely without using force.

Also I never directly compared waterboarding to chopping off peoples hands, gouging out their eyes, or simply shooting them in the back of their head. I do count waterboarding as torture though and I'm not the only one:

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said.

Source:http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

 

I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.

Source:http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6

 

Are you still gonna argue that waterboarding isn't torture?

 

As to your plea for alternatives: Anything that finds itself withing the constraints of simple human decency. Regular interrogation techniques aught to suffice and would have the added benefit, as Walsingham is so nice as to mention, that it is actually possible to put a great trust in the info as the person giving the info would have little to gain, unlike in situations involving great physical or mental anguish as short-term relief tends to look good in that kind of situation.

 

Now that I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently let me pose you a questions: Would you find it acceptable if torture (e.g. waterboarding as used by the CIA) was used to extract information from you? This is cetainly a logical possibility and I would be interested in hearing your answer.

 

From what I can gather, your entire collective point seems to be that waterboarding is not "nice". Ok, no arguement there. But it gets far far worse than waterboarding,...

Waterboarding isn't as bad as other examples of torture bit that isn't an argument for using it, it simply means that the CIA are leass bad than e.g. the taliban which is a pointless point as both can easily be said to use unacceptable methods.

[dan107]

Are you still gonna argue that waterboarding isn't torture?

 

While you have some points regarding the definition of torture, I still don't see any point in arguing the meaning of the word. I will say that I believe waterboarding to be an appropriate means of extracting information from enemy combatants, yes. Don't forget that this is a war after all, and if the interests of our own security can be advanced by inflicting psychological damage on the people we're at war with, there is no doubt in my mind that it must be done. I would even go a lot further than waterboarding, if that is indeed necessary and effective.

 

As to your plea for alternatives: Anything that finds itself withing the constraints of simple human decency. Regular interrogation techniques aught to suffice and would have the added benefit, as Walsingham is so nice as to mention, that it is actually possible to put a great trust in the info as the person giving the info would have little to gain, unlike in situations involving great physical or mental anguish as short-term relief tends to look good in that kind of situation.

 

What regular interrogation techniques exactly? Again, what if the person simply refuses to talk to you? How do you break them? Let's say you are in a situation where you have reason to believe that American lives can be saved by extracting whatever information that person has in a prompt fashion. What do you do in that situation?

 

Now that I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently let me pose you a questions: Would you find it acceptable if torture (e.g. waterboarding as used by the CIA) was used to extract information from you? This is cetainly a logical possibility and I would be interested in hearing your answer.

 

Certainly that's not something that I would look forward to, but if you get captured by the people who you're fighting against and trying to kill in a war, it's naive to expect otherwise. Since I'm unlikely to find myself at odds with the CIA though, let me put it this way -- if I were to go over to Iraq, and was captured by the militants, I would hope and pray to everything I've ever believed in that waterboarding would be the worst that they would to me.

 

Waterboarding isn't as bad as other examples of torture bit that isn't an argument for using it, it simply means that the CIA are leass bad than e.g. the taliban which is a pointless point as both can easily be said to use unacceptable methods.

 

That was more of a counterarguement to the nonsensical claims that Guantamo Bay is as bad as a concentration camp, and that there is no difference between the CIA and the terrorists. There are degrees of brutality, and when compared to similar organizations the CIA is as humane as any intelligence agency has ever been.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Even it these things were tortures, not that I am saying they are not, are people trying to say that these actions would never be appropriate?

[Sand]

Hey, if the CIA uses torture to save American lives so be it, but our government shouldn't try to sell itself as the good guys. Those who have good moral leadership and ethics would never allow the use of torture for whatever the reason. Since Bush allows torture he is not a good moral and ethical leader.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Sand

[Hell Kitty]

 

We don't run this interrogation facility, but we have an understanding with the people who do.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I will say that I believe waterboarding to be an appropriate means of extracting information from enemy combatants, yes. Don't forget that this is a war after all, and if the interests of our own security can be advanced by inflicting psychological damage on the people we're at war with, there is no doubt in my mind that it must be done. I would even go a lot further than waterboarding, if that is indeed necessary and effective.

As Walsingham has already said, it isn't effective. People under torture don't tell the truth, they tell whatever they think will end the torture soonest. The information you get is useless.

 

The Bush administration approved the use of torture because it wanted to persuade first itself, then the electorate, that it was taking tough action 'to protect the American people'. It was always more about appearance than about substance.

[Sand]

The only thing it made the US look like was the bad guy. Only the bad guys use torture if you follow popular media.

[Gorgon]

At least McCain can't subscribe to this relative weighing out of torture, as if 'torture light' existed. He was tortured himself and doesn't mince words.

 

I think we ought to consider torturing the president and the secretary of state, it would be a valuable life lesson with practical applications.

 

The central question of whether torture works. Well, here's the rub, it does work if you are able to cooperate the information gathered, in essence it is one source with just as many motivations for telling the truth as for telling what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. It all depends on how ruthless and impatient you are in search of intelligence.

 

As for this 'being a war after all' - when does the war on terror end, are we pretty much indefinitely committed to the pursuit of stamping out a strategy employed since the birth of anarchism in the late 19th century, well you could go further back and include the Assassins, the Thugs in India, the Jewish Zealots, and claim that terrorism has been at work for as long as marginalized factions have been trying to seize and change the social and political agenda.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Gorgon

[SweetiePea]

I personally don't buy the argument that our approach is "more humane". Torture is torture, period. If you think you can demand that U.S. soldiers be treated humanely when they're captured by other nations and then turn around and torture captives of that other nation, your demands fly right out the window. Why become what you hate anyway? Besides, as many other people have said, torture does not work--why do you think it went out of fashion in the more industrialized nations? Don't forget too that whoever is doing the torturing will also suffer from it. Do we really want to turn any of our CIA agents or men and women of the military or whoever into torturers?

[Kaftan Barlast]

The methods described here are not what I or the CIA or any other intelligence agency would refer to as torture. This is is forceful interrogation, torture is several steps above and includes things like severe beatings, burning, electric shocks, breaking bones and joints, cutting etc. And from what Ive read, many of them(sensory deprivation, slapping, grabbing, punching) are not used anymore as they have been proven ineffective.

 

 

Im not too happy about forceful interrogation methods, but I do realise that they can be necessary. Religous and or political fanatics are not intimidated easily, and so I imagine its extremely difficult to persuade them to surrender information with normal interrogation methods.