Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Jester]

Good. You've demonstrated you can criticize. So my criterion is useless. Fine, what do you have to propose that is better?

There isn't going to be a hard and fast definition, but I think the UN guidelines look pretty good to me.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

The important bits being "severe", "physical or mental", and "intentionally". Treating someone shabbily is not torture. Imprisonment, at least in its ordinary form, is not torture, but something like the Oubliette is, especially over long periods. Ordinary labour is not torture, but forced exertion to the point of physical damage (death march) is. Missing the occasional meal or not sleeping the occasional night is not torture, but chronic or severe deprivation of food or sleep is. Discomfort is not torture, but severe pain is. Some level of fear is inevitable, but the intentional infliction of acute terror, especially when repeated, is torture. Extreme humiliation is a grey area, but should be avoided by civilized nations on the basis of the disturbing effect it has on those doing the humiliation.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...they also waterboarded Abu Zubaydah (allegedly 83 times)...

So, then to be fair, I guess he should only be tortured as many times as he has victims. In his case then he has some ~3000 more times to go just for his 911 attack.

[Jester]

So, then to be fair, I guess he should only be tortured as many times as he has victims. In his case then he has some ~3000 more times to go just for his 911 attack.

I'm not crying any tears for Abu Zubaydah. But this isn't about him. We didn't torture Goering, and he committed crimes a thousand times worse. Simple retribution is simply useless and petty.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . The baseline struggle against America by various disaffected third world malcontent/scum is not something Shrub invented. . . .

Nope. And 9/11 might have occurred under anyone's watch. Though there has been a fair bit of evidence that terrorism might not have been as high a priority to the Shrub administration as it had been previously and as it should have been. But that kind of analysis, to be fair, needs a longer cool down period than we've had. Hell, John is still vilified and Richard praised, both beyond their worth.

Yeah, Shrub didn't start that particular fire, but he poured a fair bit of gas on it.

As I read it, it's a hangover from Woodrow Wilson's bloody progressivism ...

Maybe. Maybe not. The hot spin cycle of the Spanish-American war started a shrinkage of the world that's still going strong. When we had no effect on the world, the world had little cause to dislike us (or like us, for that matter). As far as the mess in the Middle East is concerned, that can be attributed, in large part, to a bunch of diplomats and their arbitrary drawing of boundaries. But the larger picture is simply a result of proximity. When the ocean became a pond, we got neighbors. Not all of them nice.

My experience in the dealing with terrorists of the Islamic sort goes back to Beirut gun line, early 1980's. It's an old problem too long overlooked by both our Army and the Congress who "organizes and fund" our armed services. ALso, one's enemy gets a vote.

Partially a consequence of the cold war. When we were still 'fighting' it, terrorism was small potatoes. After we 'won' it, peace had burst out all over (didn't you get that memo?) Took a while for the hill trogs to realize that there was more than one threat in this universe.

To call out "barbarism" as the enemy is, to me, as impractical as the strategic statement General Joulwan made in late 1990's when he was commander of NATO: "The threat is instability." In short, it doesn't do anything for policy or problem solution.

True. I should have said 'barbarians', as you do below.

The fight, the struggle between varying camps and ideologies, is standard human practice. The pretense that we, as in we the human race, are somehow beyond war needs to be dispelled if any fool out there still holds it, particularly if that fool is a decision maker.

And, yet, there are ways to resolve issues short of open warfare. We, the USA, are about as big as Europe. We are about as diverse (since we pretty well come from all parts of Europe). We've managed to get through two and a quarter centuries with one major war and a small number of squabbles in our corner of the globe. I can't even keep track of the number of European wars occurred in the same time frame (a few of which sucked us in, too).

We may not be beyond war, but perhaps we can learn to relegate it to the last, rather than the first, resort.

Bush, as a policy maker, violated nearly all of Clausewitz' and Sun Tzu's advice on how to match aims and means, as well as Bismarck's, so he was bound to screw up quite of bit of what he tried in the war field.

I doubt that Shrub has a clue. If he's even read, much less studied, Sun Tzu I'd be surprised. As to Clausewitz, I suspect he's never even heard of the man. The problem, to some extent, is to have a commander in chief who's not a trained military man. Especially if the CiC is a fool and his advisers are equally ignorant (Robert McNamara comes to mind).

Obama isn't showing me much better form. My hope is that he learns on the job. No confidence in that, however. We shall see.

Indeed we shall.

I won't recommend targetting barbarism. I recommend targetting barbarians, like the Mexican drug cartels. It's not like they haven't been at this for a couple of generations .... and their war is a political and economic power grab.

Perhaps a little of both. Target the barbarians to solve the immediate problem and barbarism to solve the long term one.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm not crying any tears for Abu Zubaydah. But this isn't about him. We didn't torture Goering, and he committed crimes a thousand times worse. Simple retribution is simply useless and petty.

I didn't mean as retribution. Only as a means of ferreting out what he knew about Al Queyda operations.

[Jester]

I didn't mean as retribution. Only as a means of ferreting out what he knew about Al Queyda operations.

They apparently managed to do that much before they waterboarded him. And afterwards, he was a gibbering idiot, telling you all sorts of things that couldn't possibly be true.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

There isn't going to be a hard and fast definition, but I think the UN guidelines look pretty good to me.

Fair enough. Let start there.

The important bits being "severe", . . .

Who gets to determine what is severe? Me, or you? For if I get to define severe, it will be a question of days, perhaps weeks, of healing. Your definition, I suspect, will be somewhat gentler.

. . . "physical or mental" . . .

As opposed to? Spiritual?

. . . "intentionally".

Well, that's good.

So far, I'm underwhelmed. Using that definition gets me precisely nowhere since I still need to determine what 'severe' is, what the subject considers mental suffering (someone desecrating a Koran would not bother me in the same way as it would a devout Muslim), at the least. We're right back to where we began, what is torture? Some of the rites of manhood practiced by many cultures until recently (some still practiced) would qualify as torture except in purpose.

Treating someone shabbily is not torture. Imprisonment, at least in its ordinary form, is not torture, but something like the Oubliette is, especially over long periods. Ordinary labour is not torture, but forced exertion to the point of physical damage (death march) is. Missing the occasional meal or not sleeping the occasional night is not torture, but chronic or severe deprivation of food or sleep is. Discomfort is not torture, but severe pain is. Some level of fear is inevitable, but the intentional infliction of acute terror, especially when repeated, is torture. Extreme humiliation is a grey area, but should be avoided by civilized nations on the basis of the disturbing effect it has on those doing the humiliation.

Yeah, we're in agreement. At one extreme is throwing someone a party. At the opposite is destroying their body or their mind (or both). Somewhere on this spectrum someone has to determine where torture starts. Should that be a bleeding heart Canadian liberal or a WWII super-Bushido Japanese soldier?

Sorry, I think the UN guidelines are every bit as useless as my definition which you demolished. We still don't know what torture is.

--Pete

[Skandranon]

Sometimes I view this struggle against tyranny like a tug of war, and every time we weaken our resolve the rope moves closer to their side. We give Hugo Chavez a kiss on the cheek, they win a little. We bend over for Castro, they win a little more. We don't react when Daniel Ortega ridicules the US, and we lose a little more. Our President travels around the world prostrating himself before the world, offering apologies for American arrogance, and we lose a little more. We gut our military again, and humiliate the American agencies who are doing their best to protect the nation, and we have lost more ground. How long does it take to forget the lesson of 911? I guess about two Presidential terms is the limit of American will power. Yes, I know it is not so one dimensional, but it feels this way sometimes.

On this and on the torture point, I've found Daniel Larison an interesting writer to follow. For your consideration:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/04/19...tual-standards/
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/04/...apologies/ - with regards to the often misrepresented state of international relations.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/04/...e-and-war/ - with regards to torture.

All of these links point to Larison's blog, hosted on the American Conservative site, which is the magazine he writes for, so these are hardly left-wing critiques.

[--Pete]

Hi,

All of these links point to Larison's blog, hosted on the American Conservative site, which is the magazine he writes for, so these are hardly left-wing critiques.

Thanks for the links. He seems to be a voice of reason -- and we could do with many more such.

--Pete

[Jester]

Sorry, I think the UN guidelines are every bit as useless as my definition which you demolished. We still don't know what torture is.

Not precisely, no. As I said, we're not going to find a nice litmus test to dunk into our activities, and read "torture" or "not torture". And there is grey space, where the line is being pushed.

However, what I entered this whole sub-thread about was that the category of mental torture should not be simply tossed out, which you appeared to be doing. The UN definition includes the vaguely tautological "physical and mental" specifically to invalidate such definitions as exclude mental torture. It doesn't tell you what torture definitely *is*, but it does at least deny certain other definitions about what it *isn't*.

There, as everywhere, there are evolving standards. If you're hoping for a single ahistorical, universally valid measure of torture (and I'm sure you're not), then it's not going to appear, here or elsewhere. Each court, each army, each person is going to have to make the decision, over and over again, so long as war exists, which, as Occhi rightly points out, is probably going to be forever.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

However, what I entered this whole sub-thread about was that the category of mental torture should not be simply tossed out, which you appeared to be doing.

Whoa, Nelly. In my struggle to start a discussion of what torture is, I said "Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion." Nowhere did I exclude mental torture. Nor would I. One of the most effective, and insidious, forms of torture is sensory deprivation. Had you added the criteria you considered important, we could have had a discussion on the topic, rather than an argument.

There, as everywhere, there are evolving standards. If you're hoping for a single ahistorical, universally valid measure of torture (and I'm sure you're not), then it's not going to appear, here or elsewhere. Each court, each army, each person is going to have to make the decision, over and over again, so long as war exists, which, as Occhi rightly points out, is probably going to be forever.

I'm not looking for a universal definition. I'm looking for some pragmatic, but solid, criteria that apply to early twenty-first century industrial countries. And if that is still too broad, then let's limit it to the USA in 2009.

--Pete

[Jester]

Whoa, Nelly. In my struggle to start a discussion of what torture is, I said "Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion." Nowhere did I exclude mental torture. Nor would I.

That would be the source of the misunderstanding, then. I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you meant criterion as "necessary but not sufficient". If all you mean is "some kinds of torture involve physical harm", then of course, I agree.

As for criteria (in the broad sense) that I consider important, I think there are several. Pain is one of them, I think anything involving inflicting pain to coerce or interrogate is almost certainly torture. Acute terror is another. Obviously, anything that leaves wounds or disfigurement is included. Anything which compromises the long term health of the prisoner, or causes a nontrivial chance of death, is also included. Discomfort is tougher, but I think stress positions is clearly over the line, as it has a fairly good chance of causing harm. Confinement in some kind of narrow box or cage is torture, but a small prison cell is not; I think space to lie down is the minimum there.

Humiliation, as I said before, is questionable. I don't think (for instance) desecrating holy text is a civilized thing to do from the perspective of an interrogator, but it's not on the level of torture. Subjecting them to sexual humiliation is similar. I think those things should be banned and punished by any organization simply for internal discipline reasons, but I'm less sure they need to be banned by international treaty. However, I don't think those tactics have ever yielded good information, and so are probably quite pointless anyway.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, yes I do. You're talking about extracting information from people who do not want to talk to you. You're going to what, keep them up past their bedtime and let them go without dessert?

This is a thread about *coercive* methods. If you don't push hunger at least to the point where they're desperate, then you might as well just feed them, at least then they'll be lucid. If you don't make them "lack" sleep until they're "deprived" of it, what exactly are you expecting to get? Yawns? In this context, if you say "hunger" and "lack of sleep" are acceptable, I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret that as as "starvation" (not necessarily fatal, but damaging) and "sleep deprivation." If all you mean is that you don't give them a second helping of potatoes and make sure they're up at the crack of dawn, then fine, but it's a bit misleading.

Regardless, even if this is 100% the pot calling the kettle black, that doesn't alter the charge. I didn't say squat all about never being allowed to use any kind of mental discomfort whatsoever. I just said that your "physical harm" criterion doesn't make sense.

-Jester

If there is no threat of a consequence, there is little to no incentive for cooperation. When time is no facter, that may be an agreeable state of play. When it is (and in politics, perception is reality) then playing the waiting game is a guaranteed non successful ploy. When you are dealing with the class of people that fit into "True Believer" models, see Hoffer, you are not dealing with anything other than a difficult to impossible information extraction task. See also Stockdale, a True Believer in his own right.

I don't give a flying rat's arse that a terrorist arsehole was waterboarded. You don't need a kangaroo court to know who is or isn't in that group. What you need is to find them, and eliminate them (and in my opinion, everyone related to them by the second degree, just to get the point across.)

You and people like you weren't tortured, nor were the hundreds of other people kept, rightly or wrongly, at Gitmo.

Guess why?

You aren't a threat, nor do you habitually associate with people who blow other people up by flying planes into buildings for reasons that remain acceptable to you, obviously, but not to me. Let me make this clear: I do not recall you ever taking any joy in the attacks, nor in the almost daily suicide bomber attacks in Iraq since the civil war turned up a notch about four years ago. Four years ago. The sustained slaughter of the people minding their own effing business continues, all attempts at "winning herats and minds" considered. What I do recall after the 9-11 attacks was you, along with your countrymen being most supportive.

In the short term, anyway.

It's the reasons that you seem to accept, the very assertion of wrongness of the modern world that was attacked, and of which you are an integral part by your own philosophy and sensibilities.

Jester, I think you make an enormous mistake in presuming that the war of symbols will only be won your way, by your perceived method of rightness. The enemy gets a vote. They spit at your (and my) modern world, and its effete sensibilities. Your school of thought isn't winning anyone's hearts and minds, except within your own imagination. Neither did the Bush crowd win anyone over, certainly, with the approach taken. Two poor courses to proceed on, neither of which works.

Assuming that the hearts and minds are winnable is the core of the delusion.

As to mental torture, the carelessnes with which that term has been used, and the complaints made about any treatment other than simple confinement, renders the discussion pre poisoned.

You either define terms and criterion in detail, clearly and explicitly, or don't waste anyone's time with such a moving, ambiguous target.

Occhi

[Jester]

If there is no threat of a consequence, there is little to no incentive for cooperation. When time is no facter, that may be an agreeable state of play. When it is (and in politics, perception is reality) then playing the waiting game is a guaranteed non successful ploy. When you are dealing with the class of people that fit into "True Believer" models, see Hoffer, you are not dealing with anything other than a difficult to impossible information extraction task. See also Stockdale, a True Believer in his own right.

Right. And when we're staring down the maw at the three-billion strong army ready to smash down civilization, maybe we'll start thinking about quick-and-dirty methods. But we're not even close to that yet. We're not even at a level of danger that approaches, say, the Korean war, let alone a conflict that justifies throwing the niceties out the window. If the argument is one of necessity, then the counter is obvious: there isn't a necessity. And if the results show anything, it's that there's barely even a point to it even if getting accurate information was absolutely urgent: you don't get much useful information out of torture. Why throw away principles for a sword that isn't even sharp?

You and people like you weren't. Guess why? You aren't a threat, nor do you habitually associate with people who blow other people up by flying planes into buildings for reasons[i] that remain acceptable to you, obviously, but not to me.

Am I reading that wrong, or are you implying that I believe that Al Qaeda had acceptable reasons for September 11? If so, that's a pretty low blow.

I think you make an enormous mistake in presuming that the war of symbols will only be won your way, by your perceived method of rightness.

Well, you can always try winning it by muddying the waters about torture, and blustering about how horrible your enemies are. Surely you can see how very effective that's been at winning hearts and minds all over the globe, it's been US policy for 8 years running.

The enemy gets a vote. They spit at your modern world, and its effete sensibilities. You aren't winning anyone's hearts and minds, except within your own imagination.

Right, because the only people who are watching our actions are people who "spit" at the "modern world". Surely you know that "hearts and minds" isn't about winning over the diehards. It's about making it clear that, while they may be callously brutal, we are not. And it's as much about winning the peace afterwards as it is about sheer effectiveness.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

That would be the source of the misunderstanding, then. I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you meant criterion as "necessary but not sufficient". If all you mean is "some kinds of torture involve physical harm", then of course, I agree.

Criteria can be disjunct. Thus, my criterion of physical pain can be joined with yours of mental pain to form the UN composite of "physical or mental". But I don't need to tell you that.

As for criteria (in the broad sense) that I consider important, I think there are several. Pain is one of them, I think anything involving inflicting pain to coerce or interrogate is almost certainly torture.

Quibbling, here, but I'm going to disagree. Consider an interrogator backhanding a suspect across the face, once. Torture? I don't think so.

Acute terror is another.

In general, I agree. However, consider incarcerating a claustrophobic. Here we need the 'intent' aspect from the UN guidelines.

Obviously, anything that leaves wounds or disfigurement is included. Anything which compromises the long term health of the prisoner, or causes a nontrivial chance of death, is also included.

True, and well past the gray area.

Discomfort is tougher, but I think stress positions is clearly over the line, as it has a fairly good chance of causing harm.

Still a matter of degree. Depends a lot on the condition of the subject.

Humiliation, as I said before, is questionable. I don't think (for instance) desecrating holy text is a civilized thing to do from the perspective of an interrogator, but it's not on the level of torture. Subjecting them to sexual humiliation is similar. I think those things should be banned and punished by any organization simply for internal discipline reasons, but I'm less sure they need to be banned by international treaty. However, I don't think those tactics have ever yielded good information, and so are probably quite pointless anyway.

Humiliation is very culture dependent. In a culture where the only recourse from humiliation is death, physical pain may be less torture than is humiliation. Examples would be feudal Japan and many of the American native tribes.

The oft repeated notion that torture is an inefficient way to obtain information is false. In almost every case it will generate a lot of information. What is in doubt is the accuracy of that information. A confession generated by torture is useless in determining if the accused is guilty, since an innocent person is just as likely to confess as is a guilty just to stop the pain. General information is equally suspect. But for cases where the information is specific and testable (e.g., a safe combo, the location of an accomplice or of a hostage, etc.), torture is very efficient.

The reason not to use torture is thus not a pragmatic one, but a moral one.

--Pete

[Jester]

Quibbling, here, but I'm going to disagree. Consider an interrogator backhanding a suspect across the face, once. Torture? I don't think so.

Well, there's a line there somewhere, but striking someone you're interrogating is getting pretty close to it. If someone did it only once during an interrogation, I'd hardly have them hauled before a war crimes tribunal, but if hitting people was just a regular part of interrogation, I'd say that's torture.

In general, I agree. However, consider incarcerating a claustrophobic. Here we need the 'intent' aspect from the UN guidelines.

We are agreed there. Intent is critical.

Humiliation is very culture dependent. In a culture where the only recourse from humiliation is death, physical pain may be less torture than is humiliation. Examples would be feudal Japan and many of the American native tribes.

This point is a difficult one, and goes to the heart of the interaction between culture and psychology, which we really haven't figured out to anyone's satisfaction. However, I think I would still err on the side of making physical pain more strictly banned than humiliation; at a certain point, some degree of psychological twisting is simply necessary for any interrogation, however high-minded. A Japanese soldier (or an American one, really) would no doubt be shamed by revealing secret information, but that would be the whole point of interrogating him!

The oft repeated notion that torture is an inefficient way to obtain information is false. In almost every case it will generate a lot of information. What is in doubt is the accuracy of that information. A confession generated by torture is useless in determining if the accused is guilty, since an innocent person is just as likely to confess as is a guilty just to stop the pain. General information is equally suspect. But for cases where the information is specific and testable (e.g., a safe combo, the location of an accomplice or of a hostage, etc.), torture is very efficient.

The reason not to use torture is thus not a pragmatic one, but a moral one.

I don't think any credible opponent of torture would claim that torture does not yield lots of information. At least in the critiques I've read, they emphasize that point, that a tortured prisoner yields far too much information, but you no longer have any reliable way of gauging its accuracy. In extreme cases, the prisoner themselves may no longer have a way of gauging its accuracy, since they've come to believe their desperate lies.

But yes, the strongest argument is the moral one. It is just extra disappointing to hear people eagerly advocate its use when it is known to yield such problematic information. We must always remember that people like "Blowtorch Bob" are waiting in every society, no matter how civilized.

-Jester

[Jester]

I am especially fond of the image of Charles Krauthammer literally pouring gasoline on the US' international reputation and lighting it on fire. Pure gold. One might substitute oil for gas, just to add an extra layer of cynicism, but that would probably just be painting the lily.

-Jester

[Nastie_Bowie]

We didn't torture Goering, and he committed crimes a thousand times worse.

We weren't trying to get intel out of him, either. We tried him for his crimes and sentenced him to death.

Apples and oranges.

If torture is soooo ineffective, why has it been used since the beginning of history?

[--Pete]

Hi,

If torture is soooo ineffective, why has it been used since the beginning of history?

Because people are stupid and arrogant. Torture has been used, historically, mostly to get confessions from people the torturer "knew" were guilty. And, sure enough, torture them long enough and they confess, vindicating the torturer. The fact that the confession is meaningless is conveniently ignored.

Also, if you had bothered reading the thread, you would know that torture is not ineffective in gathering information. It is ineffective because the information gathered often is of no value. The person being tortured will often make up anything he can think of just to stop the pain.

--Pete

[Jester]

We weren't trying to get intel out of him, either. We tried him for his crimes and sentenced him to death.

Right. My point was that just because someone committed horrible crimes, does not mean torture is automatically on the table, which appeared to be what Kandrathe was implying.

If torture is soooo ineffective, why has it been used since the beginning of history?

First, that's a poor argument. "If praying for health is so ineffective at healing, why has it been used since the beginning of history?" It's an elementary example of the genetic fallacy. Antiquity is no guarantee of effectiveness.

As to motives, as I said in my first post in this thread:

Torture is a relatively poor method of intelligence collection, and a remarkably effective tool of coercion.

The rest is obvious.

-Jester