Torture's Terrible Toll

[Zarathustra]

Here's a VERY good read I stumbled across today. I've been following the issue but only today saw the piece written by McCain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/

I can't say there's anything there with which I disagree. Whether or no one agrees with his support of the administration's actions in the current war, he respectfully takes issue with the idea of torture as policy.

[Occhidiangela]

Here's a VERY good read I stumbled across today. I've been following the issue but only today saw the piece written by McCain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/

I can't say there's anything there with which I disagree. Whether or no one agrees with his support of the administration's actions in the current war, he respectfully takes issue with the idea of torture as policy.
[right][snapback]94936[/snapback][/right]

There have been about a hundred articles on this "torture" issue lately, most of which I have read. McCain knows what the real deal is, most of the dipsticks who are writing about it don't.

Far too many journalists are confusing "abuse" and "torture" and "mind games." They then seque into "abuse" and the photos of "Abu Graib" without understanding that they are mixing contexts. I was treated worse than a naked dog pile in a training environment. I can't comment on what non-military organizations do, so I won't. The farming out of selected prisoners to regimes with less stringent regulations than America has is an interesting approach, but the risk it carries is abusing both America's image and the desirable moral high ground position, be it true, fabricated as spin, or a bit of both.

Where there are bona fide violations of DoD regulations, which carry the force of law under the category of administrative law enacteed by Congress, then rightly whoever is involved, including the entire chain of command, needs to get hammered.

I note that the general in charge of the Abu Graib unit is still free, and is not in prison. "Oh, she got demoted." Right. Until that is resolved otherwise, the issue is being clouded with a lot of hot air and nonsense. She is hiding behind both her gender and her commission.

The Gitmo matter, regardless of its loopholes and legality under the Constitution, has created an image problem. In a war where image is part of the battle field, which is true for this war for the hearts and minds of the average Arab on the streets of the Mid East, symbols like Gitmo are counterproductive, and thus not part of a winning informatino strategy.

At least Senator McCain speaks from a position of understanding the core issues, and some of the points he has made lately underscore the problems of the questionable reliability of information extracted under duress, as well as the political imperative to hold the moral high ground.

Not a few of the prisoners, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably some of the folks in Gitmo, are what Eric Hoffer woudl call "True Believers." When you are dealing with a "True Believer" you are not dealing with an easy to break man. I offer Admiral James Stockdale as a stellar example. If you don't know who he is, look him up. He's a lot more than Ross Perot's running mate in 1992, a whole lot more.

Occhi

[Guest]

McCain and most others twist the truth.(I say this as someone who agrees with him we should make torture illegal especially for the military.)

Im sure hes correct that you wont get reliable answers - most of the time. If someone doesnt know an answer of course they will make one up when they are tortured enough.

But on the other hand sometimes you know the "bad guy" knows the answer. Say you have a terrorist who planted a bomb somewhere and you need the location - chances are you can get it out of him if you have the time.

I can imagine other types of cases where it also might work.



That said we should have a law against it.

[Doc]

I am not sure how I feel about the idea of using torture to withdraw information, like in the situation mentioned by Ghostiger.

But it makes me feel mighty uncomfortable. I am just pragmatic enough, and believe strongly enough in the "ends justify the means" to the point where it would be a considerable option. I think. I really can't say. The life of one vs the lives of millions. Or thousands. Or even hundreds. What makes it justified?

Of course, my methods of torture would be most cruel and unusual. Barney, in surround sound DVD home theatre. Hours of it.

[gothmog]

But on the other hand sometimes you know the "bad guy" knows the answer. Say you have a terrorist who planted a bomb somewhere and you need the location - chances are you can get it out of him if you have the time.
[right][snapback]95009[/snapback][/right]

Chances are that he sends you to the other corner of the city. This isn't 24. Torture has shown one thing: People will tell anything to stop it or won't tell anything at all and take any abuse. There are enough people who confessed their crimes of being a witch/heretic/dissident to know that the torture approach doesn't yield real information.

[Guest]

Actuallyeven anti-torture advocates(smart one like McCain) dont even say that. Its pretty much accepted that at some point of "duress" almost everyone will break. The real problem is that when people "break" they will lie if they percievw that will stop the pain better than telling the truth.

[Occhidiangela]

Actuallyeven anti-torture advocates(smart one like McCain) dont even say that. Its pretty much accepted that at some point of "duress" almost everyone will break. The real problem is that when people "break" they will lie if they percievw that will stop the pain better than telling the truth.
[right][snapback]95095[/snapback][/right]

I direct you to the case of LTC West, whose circumstances in Iraq about two years ago addressed handling "perishable information/intelligence."

He didn't torture anyone. He scared the crap out of a guy, good cop bad cop routine that ended in vocal threats and a fired pistol (pointed elsewhere) next to the guy's head. The dude talked because he probably thought he was about to get shot. West's men rounded up a dozen or so guys they'd been looking for. Those guys, once apprehended, were no longer out setting off bombs or IED's, and one can conclude that quite a few lives were saved as a result of that innovation on the spot.

West got hammered for good police work, as I understand it he was relieved of command. I am still not sure why.

You can possibly appreciate my reservations when anyone talks about "abuse" or "mistreatment" in a scenario where you aren't talking about knocking over the local 7-11.

The problem about this whole discussion: the over generalization, extremely cloudy definition of terms, not to mention ignoring the varied cases, and the inane presumption among the bleeding hearts that Americans are supposed to be aligned lawful stupid. :P Leonard Pitts' recent column, however, about "why do we even need make this rule" is the most important point to ponder.

Back to cases, once you have someone in jail for an extended period of time . . . the West scenario no longer applies. I find the hue and cry over "abuse" of the Koran to be complete BS. It's a book. Or, if it is to be held sacred, then the BIble must be held sacred and the 10 Commandments need to go back up on the wall in Georgia. (Or wherever that judge argued about that.) How about a little consistency, eh? While we are at it, let's hold the Black Sabbath sacred. (Yeah, I know, play Black Sabbath backwards at 78rpm and you see God . . . Big Bambu.)

The long term prisoner, Abu Grahib and Gitmo, I think, is what Senator McCain is raising the core issue about, and where he holds a profound experience.

Translating that sound byte about "torture" and "abuse" "poor treatment" into broad brush policy is, and trust me, please, I have written policy, a lot trickier than a few words in a paper mentioning "torture." And the sound byte is all most people get, or are actually interested in, thanks Short Attention Span Population.

Ask any lawyer about the care one has to use in crafting policy, since lawyers make their fortunes diving into the loopholes.

Occhi

[Guest]

Well I think thats a different aspect than I addessed.

I was talking about torture that we all agree is turture. My personal definition would set a standard much higher than the media seems too.

For instance the picture of a guy being threatened with a dog. Im sure it was scarey as #$%&, but I wouldnt call it turture. On the other hand I find it absurd that people were clearly beaten to death in those same prisons - yet no high level officials were held responsible.

[Doc]

What about threatening to dip somebody in to a vat of rendered lard pork fat?

Is that torture? I mean, it's not actually hurting them is it?

Just like the dog isn't hurting them. Right?

[Guest]

Some prisoners might believe your going to hurt them if you yell at them.

Conceptually all interigation techniques other than offering rewards are the same - a threat - sometimes its implied sometimes its explicit, buttt the effect on the subject is the same either way.

[Ashock]

Chances are that he sends you to the other corner of the city. This isn't 24. Torture has shown one thing: People will tell anything to stop it or won't tell anything at all and take any abuse. There are enough people who confessed their crimes of being a witch/heretic/dissident to know that the torture approach doesn't yield real information.
[right][snapback]95023[/snapback][/right]

A more or less normal individual will *always* break in order to stop the torture. What varies is the amount of pain that different individuals can take before they do, but eventually with enough pain, everyone will break. For that to happen though, the pain needs to be real, not implied. The stronger willed will be able to get through the implied threats and some pain and not break. They just won't last forever, but they would if their torture was only implied or not severe enough.

This is backed up by years of ummmm.... "research" done by the KGB and the GRU, just to name a few choice organizations.


-A

[whyBish]

that Americans are supposed to be aligned lawful stupid.  :P [right][snapback]95100[/snapback][/right]

But Bush has so much fun RPing that role :P