Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

From the leaked ICRC report here is part of Khaled Shaik Mohammed's description of his experiences while in CIA custody.

Sounds familiar, except the shackles part. That part would have been excruciating. I can take a huge amount of short term discomfort and acute pain, but the chronic chaffing of anything would drive me crazy. I don't even wear a watch. As a part of my training, I have learned to hold my breath for about 3 minutes, which is near the point where you begin to black out due to lack of oxygen to the brain. Cold water actually improves my capacity due to bradycardia.

[Jester]

Sounds familiar, except the shackles part. That part would have been excruciating. I can take a huge amount of short term discomfort and acute pain, but the chronic chaffing of anything would drive me crazy. I don't even wear a watch. As a part of my training, I have learned to hold my breath for about 3 minutes, which is near the point where you begin to black out due to lack of oxygen to the brain. Cold water actually improves my capacity due to bradycardia.

With all due respect to your horrifying experiences in grade school and working long hours, I don't think you've actually ever had to endure anything like the kind of duress that a hostile environment entails. Anyone can stay up for 96 hours a handful of times in their lives, although why is beyond me; anyone would be intellectually useless after 48, unless they were popping methamphetamines like candy corn. People can be left alone, they can assume uncomfortable positions, they can hold their breath for a minute or two (professionals can do four or five). They can be hit hard, or electrocuted, or whatever else. But in all those situations, if they are in control, it changes everything. Fear is a fundamental part of torture, and nobody, no matter how strong-willed, is going to react the same way. They are simply not comparable situations, not at all. (Also: see the "intent" part of the UN definition. Voluntary duress is not torture.)

Besides, holding one's breath makes waterboarding worse, not better. It's insidious that way, but if you hold your breath for three minutes, then you'll freak out after, at most, three minutes. The torturers are patient. They'll wait. Five minutes, ten minutes, they have you for as long as they need you. You're certainly not going to be able to hold your breath for as long as necessary, over and over, indefinitely. And when you do gasp for air, you'll already be panicking, which is the intended result in any case.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You're certainly not going to be able to hold your breath for as long as necessary, over and over, indefinitely. And when you do gasp for air, you'll already be panicking, which is the intended result in any case.

Actually, I would think the best defense against being tortured is unconsciousness. Your captors need to decide whether they will allow you to die, or not.

[Jester]

Actually, I would think the best defense against being tortured is unconsciousness. Your captors need to decide whether they will allow you to die, or not.

Good luck knocking yourself unconscious when there are professionals standing next to you trying their best to keep you awake.

Heck, good luck knocking yourself unconscious without the use of your limbs, period. There's a reason it's an idle threat when four-year-olds make it, and I'm pretty sure it's equally an idle threat for anyone with a mammalian brain.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Heck, good luck knocking yourself unconscious without the use of your limbs, period. There's a reason it's an idle threat when four-year-olds make it, and I'm pretty sure it's equally an idle threat for anyone with a mammalian brain.

It seems the interrogators were doing a good job of providing the means, and they already promised to not allow you to die.

[Jester]

It seems the interrogators were doing a good job of providing the means, and they already promised to not allow you to die.

Not quite following you here...

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

To paint the lily, treaties ratified by the US have the force of federal law, until congress overrides them.

So, the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture are not just general principles. They are US law.

-Jester

For you and Thecla:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html

Please take a look at that perspective, and remember:

If you make taking a legal opinion illegal, you have to jail any justice who writes a dissenting opinion in the SC, since case law becomes law.

Think about that.

Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people.

I'll shoot to kill, be it Obama you are after or Cheney.

That is why I asked about a US statute. Therein lies any possible legal case. The targets must be the authors of policy, not the legal counsel whose opinion they sought.

Lawyers loophole dive all the time, and do so for a variety of reasons. You just happen to disagree with this loophole dive. It's the decision makers who will, or will not, be held to account.

Guess what. They are rich enough to hire good lawyers.

Do you really think this is anything more than a political load of horsecrap?

I don't.

The current Attorney General seems to me clear thinking: move on, move forward.

Of course, he could cave in to political pressure and convene a trial.

What are the odd he would win?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Not quite following you here...

You don't fight it, you just drown. If they smack you around, you attempt as much as possible to reach unconsciousness. If your goal is to resist interrogation, you need to deprive them of the one thing necessary for both interrogation and torture, your consciousness. Since they are committed to not kill or maim, you have very little to fear except the acute pain needed to reach unconsciousness. In fact, if you are this jihadi terrorist king pin, the best thing you might hope for is that they actually martyr you while in their detention.

In maybe that same Latin American Studies class where I read Open Veins, we had to read the collected published works of the School of the Americas and the CIA training manual for the Contras. The techniques described above were pretty mild in comparison to the interrogation techniques I've read about in my Latin American studies, and off hand, I can think of much better non-violent, non-lethal interrogation methods than what they did to the terrorists at Gitmo. Still, I don't really condone torture, but I think that some of this squeamishness is over reacting.

[Thecla]

Well, I said I wasn't intending to discuss legalities, but since you insist, here goes nothing.:)

For you and Thecla:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html

Honestly, you'd be much better off stating your own opinion directly than linking to that article. The idea Yoo and Bybee were simply giving legal advice (as they should've been) is little short of absurd. The foxes were writing the chickenhouse rules. But leaving aside that, and the factual innacuracy of the article, I did enjoy this reasoning for the adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques":

When the usual interrogation methods were used, he had maintained his "unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews."

Yah, I bet being tortured by the CIA cured him of that pretty darn quick.;)

If you make taking a legal opinion illegal, you have to jail any justice who writes a dissenting opinion in the SC, since case law becomes law.

Wait, does this mean if you make the taking of an illegal legal opinion legal, then you have to jail any SC justice who writes a supporting opinion? I'm confused.

But seriously, that argument makes no more sense that claiming that if you courtmartial a soldier for obeying an officer's command (to kill civilians, say) then all the generals should resign. Or is it only the generals who expect soldiers to obey every command they make? Or is it the other way round. Ok I'm still confused.

Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people.

For the record, I don't believe I cited any international law (knowing it would only annoy you:)). But I believe the point made about that was that if the US is a signatory to international law, then the law has force as US law, so it would probably be US marshall's you'd be trying to kill, not some pesky swedes.

That is why I asked about a US statute. Therein lies any possible legal case. The targets must be the authors of policy, not the legal counsel whose opinion they sought.

I certainly agree that the authors of the policy are the ones who are primarily responsible. It's not so clear though who exactly they are. But the fact is that the US did adopt torture, in secret, as an executive policy, so someone, or some group, is responsible for conspiracy to torture.

I suspect that Cheney's office was the primary source of the US torture policy, and that lawyers (like Addington) played a leading role in that. I don't know how much the CIA was involved in instigating the policy (seems like they were the ones who first raised the idea of waterboarding) or simply went along with orders. I don't believe that the CIA officers who actually carried out the torture should be prosecuted if they were simply following directions from higher up (despite the "Nuremberg defence" objections). But you can be sure the primary reason the CIA destroyed the video tapes of many interrogations is because they knew very well that they would provide convincing evidence of illegal torture, whatever the memos said (and maybe because some of the interrogations took place before they had the legal cover memos). And they'd already been hung out to dry by the Bush administration on the failure to find the chemical and biological weapons that the administration pressured them for evidence of before the war.

No doubt, without the pictures, Abu Ghraib would've been dismissed by the apologists as a few harmless high-jinks of some over-exuberant guards. And speaking of accountability for the architects of the US torture policies, isn't it ironic that a few poor lower level shmucks are about the only ones to be held accountable?

Lawyers loophole dive all the time, and do so for a variety of reasons. You just happen to disagree with this loophole dive.

Actually, I happen to disagree with torture.

Guess what. They are rich enough to hire good lawyers.

So we should only prosecute poor people with bad lawyers?

Do you really think this is anything more than a political load of horsecrap?

I don't.

Do you really think the adoption of torture by the executive branch of the US government is a horsecrap issue?

I don't.

The current Attorney General seems to me clear thinking: move on, move forward.

It strikes me that Obama is the one trying to move on, and he's pressuring the AG to do the same.

Of course, he could cave in to political pressure and convene a trial.

What are the odd he would win?

Or he could cave in to the law and conclude that someone has committed a crime, because someone surely has. But, I agree entirely, if he did that he would not win, not inside this presidential term anyway.

[Jester]

You don't fight it, you just drown. If they smack you around, you attempt as much as possible to reach unconsciousness. If your goal is to resist interrogation, you need to deprive them of the one thing necessary for both interrogation and torture, your consciousness. Since they are committed to not kill or maim, you have very little to fear except the acute pain needed to reach unconsciousness. In fact, if you are this jihadi terrorist king pin, the best thing you might hope for is that they actually martyr you while in their detention.

Not bloody likely. The drowning panic reflex is not an emotion. It is not amenable to reason or self-control. It is triggered by an entirely deeper area of the brain, conditioned by thousands of years of evolution. I don't think there is a single individual on record who has done what you suggest. It may be physiologically impossible; if it's not, it's so hard that you certainly couldn't manage it day in, day out, for however long they were interrogating you.

This is just fantasy, I'm sorry.

In maybe that same Latin American Studies class where I read Open Veins, we had to read the collected published works of the School of the Americas and the CIA training manual for the Contras. The techniques described above were pretty mild in comparison to the interrogation techniques I've read about in my Latin American studies, and off hand, I can think of much better non-violent, non-lethal interrogation methods than what they did to the terrorists at Gitmo. Still, I don't really condone torture, but I think that some of this squeamishness is over reacting.

I agree that what's being done here is peanuts compared to what the SotA and CIA were teaching to death squads and counter-revolutionaries in Latin America. I believe my very first post in this thread contained a link to Dan Mitrione's wiki page. But there are two points here.

One: it was horrifying, immoral, and contrary to US and international law back then. It hasn't gotten any better since. "Mild in comparison" is not a defense, unless some moral mathematician has finally managed to prove the "two wrongs make a right" theorem.

Two: if the same organizations that did this a generation ago are given a free pass to use dubious methods, how long do you think it will take before they push the boundaries even further? If not in this war, then the next? As you rightly point out, it's not like this is a line the CIA has never crossed before.

-Jester

[Jester]

Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people. I'll shoot to kill, be it Obama you are after or Cheney.

Jeez. And you yelled at me earlier for calling you out on macho posturing, and here it is, plain as day. Has anyone here suggested anything even remotely like this? Since the answer is obviously no, why on earth do you bring this up? The only way anybody, Cheney or whomever, is being tried is with the consent of the US government. *That* is what people are arguing for, not some ridiculous UN-commando-squad kidnapping of former vice presidents, which valiant soldiers like yourself would thwart with lethal force. What purpose does this kind of talk serve?

What are the odd he would win?

Probably low. But that's not the point. This isn't about retribution, although it certainly would be nice to see the offenders punished. This is first and foremost about the rule of law: whether the US will be a country that follows its own rules, even when that leads to politically inconvenient results. If it looks like serious laws have been broken, then they should be investigated and prosecuted. If the other side wins, then them's the breaks, but it is at least made clear that this is not just being swept under the rug. Even a not-guilty verdict would send the message that the executive is not above the law; the message being sent right now is that, in practice, it is. Thecla pointed you to the relevant section of the US code. The SCOTUS* also does not share your allergy to international law, provided it has been ratified by the US, which is the case with every convention brought up in this thread.

-Jester

* That is to say, the current controlling decisions do not. Thomas clearly does not believe even ratified treaties have any force whatsoever, but then, his view has not so far prevailed.

[kandrathe]

This is just fantasy, I'm sorry.

Not really, but I'm not able to point you to resources on torture resistance techniques on the web.

As you rightly point out, it's not like this is a line the CIA has never crossed before.

Yes, the danger here is that this becomes more ubiquitous. First in interrogating enemy combatants, and alien insurgents, then later it would be allowed on anyone suspected of terrorism activities (citizen or not), and finally any prisoner. Also, I would suspect that as it became more widespread, the gamut of approved techniques would also expand until we found ourselves back in the dungeons of medieval Europe.

[Jester]

Not really, but I'm not able to point you to resources on torture resistance techniques on the web.

You can continue to claim that what you say is possible. I can only tell you it contradicts everything I've ever read about the practice, including from military instructors who were training people to resist it. Nobody has ever suggested that you can override your drowning reflex. Almost everyone claims that this is simply impossible. Water hits your lungs, or your brain even suspects that water is going to hit your lungs, and your body simply reacts. You don't get a choice. You don't get to plan your ingenious resistance plan, thinking about martyrdom and whatnot. You can't just shut off the part of your brain telling you you're drowning. You just panic. Perhaps you even do pass out, from shock or panic. But you don't control it. They have you for as long as they need, and eventually, they'll keep you conscious. How many times could that possibly take? Three? A dozen? It only take a few moments to do.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You can continue to claim that what you say is possible. I can only tell you it contradicts everything I've ever read about the practice, including from military instructors who were training people to resist it. Nobody has ever suggested that you can override your drowning reflex. Almost everyone claims that this is simply impossible. Water hits your lungs, or your brain even suspects that water is going to hit your lungs, and your body simply reacts. You don't get a choice. You don't get to plan your ingenious resistance plan, thinking about martyrdom and whatnot. You can't just shut off the part of your brain telling you you're drowning. You just panic. Perhaps you even do pass out, from shock or panic. But you don't control it. They have you for as long as they need, and eventually, they'll keep you conscious. How many times could that possibly take? Three? A dozen? It only take a few moments to do.

This is how it was described by the USOLC in 2002, <blockquote>"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."</blockquote>And... I'm telling you... I would be able to resist this, even if applied daily for months if necessary. Also, I've held my breath underwater long enough to black out. Fear is a controllable thing, even in life threatening situations. I don't think everyone is wired for this, but the more experience you have with a situation, the better prepared you are to deal with it. I won't go into details, but there was a time in my life when I had to appear catatonic or unconscious to save my life. The person examining me put needles under two of my finger nails, and hit my sternum with a hammer to determine if I was faking. That subterfuge on my part bought me enough time for friendly parties to retrieve me.

[Jester]

I don't know anything about the details of your life, so I have no ability to judge the veracity of your anecdotes.

Needless to say, I remain extremely skeptical. Anyone who can knock themselves out underwater by holding their breath is clearly unusual. Anyone who could replicate that under conditions of torture, "daily", "for months if necessary" would be approaching superhuman. Intentional hyperventilation to try and knock yourself out would be noticed by a halfway competent interrogator, and as I have said, they have time to spend. There is no reason for them to wait for you to prepare yourself.

(It also strikes me that, assuming everything you've ever said or implied about yourself to be true, you've lived a pretty damn crazy life. Maybe you should write an autobiography.)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Anyone who can knock themselves out underwater by holding their breath is clearly unusual.

I've done it a number of times. Hyperventilate, start swimming, go past the first "you need to breath" message (that's just slightly elevated CO2), then go past the second and you're there. The funny thing is, you'll often keep making swimming motions even after you've passed out. Be sure you've got someone who knows what they are doing (I did it with a Red Cross certified WSI) watching you, ready to pull you out.

Might be a cultural thing. I did it as a teen living in Georgia. Perhaps the warmer climate put us in the water more often. I can remember three high school friends who also did it a time or two. We were all competing, for fun, to see who could go the furthest underwater.

So, that much of his story, at least, I have no trouble accepting.

--Pete

[Jester]

I've done it a number of times. Hyperventilate, start swimming, go past the first "you need to breath" message (that's just slightly elevated CO2), then go past the second and you're there. The funny thing is, you'll often keep making swimming motions even after you've passed out. Be sure you've got someone who knows what they are doing (I did it with a Red Cross certified WSI) watching you, ready to pull you out.

Right. If you prepare yourself by hyperventilating, you can do it. (You learn something new every day.) If you prepare yourself in various ways, you can do all sorts of things: withstand electrocution, go without food or sleep, sustain high levels of pain. People have voluntarily survived amputations without anaesthetic, which is about as bad as it comes. But that's part of the whole torture game: they set the schedule, not you. What people can do during training and what people can actually do in a real interrogation are two very different things. If your interrogators are not morons, they're not going to just sit back, watch you hyperventilate, and then waterboard you immediately afterwards. They have you there as long as they need, and eventually, you're going to have to stop hyperventilating. You can't keep your CO2 levels artificially down forever, and 24/7 is a damn long time to resist. It's not really a long time to sit back and watch someone resist, waiting for your moment.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

What people can do during training and what people can actually do in a real interrogation are two very different things.

I'd guess you're right. That whole discussion is between you and kandrathe, I'm too ignorant of the topic to contribute much. Just chimed in to support the bit I had personal experience with.

BTW, water boarding is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the methods allowed by the Inquisition. They too had limits. IIRC, they could not break bones nor draw blood. Been too long since my fascination with the macabre led me to investigate that topic, but that is what I think I remember.;)

--Pete

[Zenda]

And... I'm telling you... I would be able to resist this, even if applied daily for months if necessary.

It must hurt you then, to realize that who-knows-how-many taxpayer dollars were spent to implement 'information retrieval techniques' that wouldn't even work on you <_<

I wonder though, if you would still trivialize the matter if one of your own children were subjected. Got a daughter? Imagine her nude, blindfolded and shackled, being thrown against a brick wall by men totally in control of her, as often as they like... Imagine yourself, completely powerless about the situation, and not knowing where she is, what else she has to endure, or even if you are ever going to see her again, dead or alive... Get the picture now?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Got a daughter? Imagine her . . .

Right. Because we have to take everything to the personal, emotional level. We're too immature a species to use rational considerations to make decisions.

Every year, people perjure themselves to avoid sending their (guilty) offspring, parents, siblings, etc., to justifiable imprisonment. Theirs is as much a valid argument against incarceration as yours is against torture.

--Pete