Torturing It
The New York Times reports that “a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.â€
The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.
While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.
Molded on old Soviet practices? Well, I am sure it will make many people proud to know that the US used the same interrogation ‘techniques’ as the Soviets did.
And guess what, torture does not work:
In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral†some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.
But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.
“There’s an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply,†said Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who, like several of the study’s contributors, is a consultant for the Defense Department.
Good Lord, have we learned nothing from history? There were thousands of women who admitted to be witches back in the dark ages, after being tortured for hours, even days. The average person would admit to just about everything after being tortured, just to make the pain go away. At a certain moment a person would rather be killed, than endure torture for one minute longer.
It is simple: torture is immoral and “there is little evidence that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.†1+1=2: no modern government should use torture (or use ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ which means exactly the same thing) against anyone. Whether the one being interrogated is suspected of being a murderer, a thief, or a terrorist: torture is never acceptable.
Read more here.
36 Responses to “Torturing It”
yet another shining example of how this Administration is the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
Well, except for maybe Dick “Friendly Fire” Cheney.
Well, I applaud your stand on torture, mvdg- it is the correct one for a superpower, because it keeps US from turning into THEM. McCain is a stalwart for his stand on this, but you do know that Mitt Romney approves of “enhanced interrogation” methods and wants to double the size of Gitmo, don’t you?
Yeah I do, although I have to admit that I had a hard time taking that statement seriously.
I think that the real reason some might endorse torture is a desire for vengeance rather than intel. It has long been known that torture is unreliable at best for gaining intel, this isn’t some recent or novel discovery. The creation of elaborate “24″ type scenarios to justify torture seem more of a type of sick fantasy about what conditions will allow actions that the person wants to take anyway. And the defenses of torture I have heard from some on the far right seem to have a visceral quality to them that indicates it is not really a logical process of choosing a strategy that includes torture, but rather an emotional embrace of wanting to hurt “those people” and then concocting a veneer of a valid reason afterward.
Use of torture also has another pragmatic problem in that it damages our ability to form and maintain alliances. This is why al-Qaeda trains its people to falsely claim they were tortured even if they weren’t — they are well aware of the practical public relations impact.
Very true Jason.
Actually, it’s the official position of this administration that those people actually WERE witches.
I think a big part of the problem is assumed guilt. It’s assumed that the people being tortured are terrorists and therefore don’t deserve the same ethical considerations everyone else is given. As questionable as that is it’s also understandable. The problem is that even IF (and it’s a big if) you assume torture is warranted against terrorists, you are essentially punishing them to see if they deserve the punishment.
I seem to remember an old legend. One of the ways of acertaining if a witch was “authentic” was drowning her. If she lived she must be a witch, and therefore had to be burned. If she died well….oops. Sound familiar?
Not just the Soviets did it.
Of course, like all similar arguments, this one assumes a common definition of “torture.” In many ways, torture is like pornography, where the cliche term is “I’ll know it when I see it.”
Techniques that inflict grievous physical pain are certainly considered torture by most, but the definition becomes more gray as the level of discomfort decreases and psychological techniques are used.
IMO the biggest argument against using any form of coercion that can be reasonably construed as torture is that any information gained is ultimately a Pyhrric victory in the overall conflict since the use of such techniques is a propaganda victory for your adversary.
It is true Mikkel. One also has to realize that when people talk about torturing or ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ the average West European thinks about the Nazis.
I’m telling you’: this is very, very bad for America’s image, also among its allies.
Jason Stark
I hadn’t thought of this–I completely agree with your entire post.
Both D’s and R’s seem to believe that standing up for a reasonable view of torture will lose votes. This is a bad reflection on the current state of the American body politic.
Entropy IMO the biggest argument against using any form of coercion that can be reasonably construed as torture is that any information gained is ultimately a Pyhrric victory in the overall conflict since the use of such techniques is a propaganda victory for your adversary.
That’s a long term issue, but the short-term issue that the information is likely inaccurate should be understood as well.
More than either of these, though, is that our entire culture is compromised by the apparent acceptance of torture. It isn’t just propaganda if you really have given the go-ahead to your henchmen to push the envelope on torture.
Our failure to repudiate any suggestion that we need to countenance torture in America’s name says something truly disturbing about us.
jjc,
Again, how do you define torture? Is a woman interrogating “devout” Muslims torture? Is flushing a Koran torture (or flushing blank papers that a detainee believes are a Koran)? What level of environmental discomfort is torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? If so, what level of sleep deprivation?
In essence, at what point does coercion become immoral and/or counterproductive and/or illegal. As the level of coercion rises, the chances of obtaining bad intel rises, so at what point does coercion become “torture?”
The point in all of this is where one draws the line and everyone draws the line differently. The simple fact of the matter is that the US is not pulling off fingernails, drilling holes in rib-cages, gouging out eyes, etc. The techniques we’re talking about are far different from the kinds of dungeons that most people associate torture with and it’s much less black-and-white on if reasonable people would consider them “torture” or not.
The point in all of this is where one draws the line and everyone draws the line differently.
True, but isn’t this what the Geneva Conventions were for?
Entropy I’m sure you know more than I do. If I recall correctly, most of the techniques in the official interrogation manual came from our WWII experience: namely that the most successful interrogators were those that treated the target very well (often better than our own troops were) and developed a friendly repetoire over several weeks or months. All this from the “fanatical” Japanese soldiers that had a religious-like fealty to the Emperor and viewed honor as more important than life.
I was under the impression that they decided long term intelligence gathering worked best when there was a stern father/friend relationship with the prisoner where the person develops a need to give up information for approval. Is this accurate?
Mikkel,
That is indeed accurate, but not so much for the Japanese. A big advantage for us there was that we were able to exploit their guilt and shame over being captured in the first place. The “friendly” technique worked well on the Germans, Italians and other Europeans who shared a common Western culture. It also works well with “regular” soldiers who have little training to identify and recognize that they’re being manipulated for information.
Those techniques would not work on me since I was highly trained in resistance techniques when I was in the military. The thing is, so have people like KSM and other high-level AQ leaders. They are not only “true believers,” but they have resistance training as well. Additionally, one thing that is almost never discussed, is the effect of the cultural divide on interrogation. Interrogators must intimately understand the culture of the person they’re interrogating if the “friendly” techniques will work. But there is also the perception of the detainee to consider – it’s more difficult for them to view us as a potential “friend.” Ideally, you want someone from the person’s ethnic group or culture to do the interrogation, but that’s not always possible.
In any event, the “friendly” techniques are the most effective for producing intelligence, particularly long-term because they produce a detainee that is willing to volunteer information. Those techniques should always be tried first, but they will likely fail against someone like me or KSM who will see them for the manipulation they are. So the question becomes, how does one get intelligence from these kind of “hard targets” when the easy, effective techniques fail?
Ostensibly, yes, but even the GC definitions are open to some interpretation.
I see that defining the line where torture becomes torture may not be easy.
While we figure it out, though, I would be more than happy with a definition saying that if a technique causes severe pain or fear of imminent dearh (dowining, suffocation), that’s torture.
I though the article suggested we develop more sophisticated methods for extracting information. That sound good to me.
Is there even any way? The problem with the information that is gathered under coercion is that the “information” given takes weeks, months or years to check out. From my understanding, some of the worst “intelligence” we got was from Al Qaeda operatives that started making up immensely huge schemes because they knew they the torture would stop (whereas if they just gave little pieces of information that didn’t seem worthwhile the interrogator would feel they were still holding back…and this occurred in renditioned subjects where I think any one has to admit it was torture) and it would take a long time for us to investigate it. Then when it turned out to be false they could just claim the plans must have changed for that scheme and make up another one.
McCain has said that he did similar things when he was tortured.
I know basically nothing about this, but I see almost no way to keep a person with training and strong loyalty from doing this. If there is no reward for giving up information then they will not give any; if there is then they are actually encouraged to make things up to get the most reward; the ultimate reward — release if there was valid information — is out of the question.
I am really not sure at all why we don’t simply use some “happy to talk” juice on those we interrogate? What we do now is not right, and in some cases surley crosses the line to torture (waterboarding, threats of killing, beating…).
Yes, but like Entropy says, they are open to interpretation, especially the ban on “psychological torture”. As an article I recently posted talked about, nearly any trivial discomfort can and will be claimed to amount to “psychological torture”, even half-inflated basketballs in the rec room or an interrogator who merely raises his voice. At the point that trivial claims receive the same label “torture” as waterboarding and electrodes, we lose the ability to make crucial moral and legal distinctions. Unfortunately, the broad, sweeping definitions used in the Geneva Conventions contribute to this problem rather than solving it.
There is a legitimate purpose to putting some form of psychological pressure on detainees that might have important information. Pressures like isolation, lights, loud music, and conditionally withholding privileges are non-harmful ways to reduce resistance to interrogation similar to those used by law enforcement. I think that the law enforcement standard can be useful in differentiating real abuse or torture from legitimate interrogation practices. If the police can’t do it to a suspect in an interrogation room, then the interrogators at Gitmo shouldn’t be able to do it either. That would also keep us well within the bounds of international consensus without having to muck about with absurd claims about “psychological torture”.
I also want to add this: In spite of all the instances of actual U.S. torture and abusive practices, such as those at Abu Ghraib, I think it is vitally important not to jump to the conclusion that torture by the U.S. is pervasive or commonplace. Such claims go far beyond evidence that is actually available of problems that have occurred. To simply assume that every detainee that claims torture must be telling the truth is to grant credence to people who have been specifically taught by their trainers to make false claims. Certainly, the ICRC and Congressional investigators should be given full access to all detention facilities to increase transparency, but we should as individuals also maintain some skepticism towards the tales told by current or former al-Qaeda operatives.
Use of drugs on detainees for purposes other than their health is a gross violation of Geneva Conventions.
Jason makes some excellent points.
Also, “Happy talk” drugs only work as advertised in the movies, even if they were permissible.
The limits on interrogations that police have, with some small modifications, is something I support. To me, as someone who served in a position in the military that carried a higher-than-normal risk of capture, I’m very cognizant that our current and potential enemies will use our own standards of acceptable conduct against us. Historically, few of our adversaries have adhered to GC standards and I suspect as a result of screw-ups like Abu Ghraib and the administration’s attempt to lawyer unlawful combatants into a legal black hole, fewer still will in the future.
Jason Stark
I have no problem with this, as far as it goes. But the problem is, it doesn’t matter so much what you or I or any American might think about it. Besides that, while I do agree with the statement, it’s not like I’m all that sure.
Clearly, we aren’t nearly as bad on the torture continuum as the pathological Saddam Hussein, but if we use that comparison as an excuse to inch along in his direction when it suits us, we’d better not expect the rest of the world not to notice and wonder what this change means. I think Americans fail to realize how little our sense of our own good intentions is appreciated outside our borders.
No, I agree we need to set up better legal and institutional firewalls to protect against the creep towards torture. As I said, I think the impulse in favor of torture is an emotional reaction, a desire for vengeance. The only way to prevent the creep in that direction under any political leadership is to establish clear guidelines and to maintain institutions for transparency and oversight.
Actually, it is because few of our enemies comply with the Geneva Conventions that I am skeptical of the “if we do it to them, they will do it to us” justification for anti-torture laws. I think it is obvious that our enemies will torture our people regardless, as they have in every conflict since Geneva was signed.
My rejection of torture is on pragmatic grounds (it obtains no useful information and is counterproductive to maintaining cooperative international relationships that are vital to fighting the war against al-Qaeda) and prima facie moral grounds (it is simply not an expression of our national values).
I think a key counterargument to this is Nazi Germany. They treated the British and American POWs with a reasonable amount of respect in most cases while not observing any laws against the Russians. The given reason was that the Russians didn’t observe the laws against them.
Oops, my point is that for future conflicts if we are dealing with enemies that do have some sense of morality it might matter.
Top News
Bush Administration
What is RSS? | All RSS Feeds
Justice Expands ‘Torture’ Definition
Earlier Policy Drew Criticism
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 31, 2004; Page A01
The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized policy memorandums drafted during President Bush’s first term.
In a statement published on the department’s Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declares that “torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms” and goes on to reject a previous statement that only “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” constitute torture punishable by law.
Friday’s Question:
It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917?
51
60
64
67
That earlier definition of torture figured prominently in complaints by Democrats and human rights groups about White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who oversaw its creation and is Bush’s nominee to become attorney general for the second term. The new memo’s
Oops – I don’t know how that got on here. I was trying to post excerpts to show that originally torture was defined in 2002 by WH counsel Gonzales’ infamous torture memo as ‘organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death”. The definition was later broadened after an outcry from hunan rights groups and Democrats. Not even the Nazis used that particular definition.
How did Gonzales sail through his confirmation hearings again?
Unfortunately, our most likely future enemies appear to be groups like al-Qaeda dedicated explicitly to the rejection of standards like Geneva and practicing the most brutal acts they can think of because, after all, God wills it.
But thats what separates US from a bunch of animals who don’t put any value on human life or human dignity.
I think it is difficult to predict who our future (i.e. decades out) enemies are going to be. Tell someone in 1985 that in a mere 15 years the soviets would be gone and the Islamic terrorists would be our biggest threat and you’d get laughed out of the room.
kritter, you must have skipped over my earlier comment:
Well , great, than we agree on something. But I also take mvdg’s larger point- of how our allies view it as an important objection. The problem with the GOP slate, is that only McCain has come out against it, and I don’t think he has the greatest chance of getting the nomination.
So do I. In fact, I brought it up.