Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Jester]

Jester says that you cannot control your subconscious, and I disagree and believe that with some training you can overcome the fear of being out of control in that situation.

Woah. I didn't say you can't control your subconscious. Fear can be overcome, although it can never be entirely dispelled. I said there are reflexes (like the drowning reflex) that you can't control. As I said earlier, that's not an emotion. It triggers from biological conditions, not emotional states.

I admit, I was technically wrong earlier. You *might* be able to pass out before it kicks in, if you hyperventilate beforehand, drop your blood CO2 levels down far enough, and hold your breath, not that your interrogators are just going to sit helplessly while you do that. But if you're conscious when the water starts dripping through your nose? You're going to lose it. The best of the best might go a couple minutes, but nobody can suppress that reflex for any meaningful length of time, at least not without a hell of a lot of drugs.

But don't take my word for it. Feel free to do what all those reporters and commentators Zenda linked to did: get a qualified professional interrogator, and a paramedic, and give it a shot. (Nobody should do this without the experts around, drowning is not cool.) If you last more than 30 seconds, I'll be impressed. If you last more than 5 minutes, maybe you should have a chat with MI5. I'm sure they're looking for double-0 agents. Navy SEALs and CIA agents say that their people last maybe 15 seconds on average. I don't know what cards you have to play that they don't, but they'd have to be pretty impressive.

This is not to say that you will inevitably give up information, or "succumb" in the sense of betraying any given thing. But the torture will most certainly *work*. No quantity of fear suppression will overcome that.

-Jester

[Thecla]

The thought of being locked in a room with hundreds of rats, or biting insects might be "torturous" to someone who is extremely fearful, however once conditioned to "not be afraid" you might even be stung or bit numerous times without "freaking out". The same is true of water boarding. Taking a radio host, or a DOD official, who has not been so pre-conditioned is hardly proof or disproof of what I said. Many soldiers who might find themselves in enemy hands are pre-conditioned to resist torture, including water boarding. They might be a better test case to validate my claims, wouldn't you think?

Well, I probably should have included a ";)" in my previous reference to you, since it was meant semi-humorously.:)

That said, I simply do not believe that you or anyone else, however well-trained, can resist the panic or fear that comes from being waterboarded. I'm sure it's a physiological response that is simply beyond any kind of voluntary (conscious or unconscious) control. The whole purpose behind many of these techniques is to use the response of the victim against him (or her) self. (But I certainly do not want you to try and prove me, or anyone else wrong about that, so we just have to leave it as a point of disagreement.)

Unconsciousness is also not going to be too much help, at least according to the transcript here from a Fillpino lawyer who was waterboarded into unconsciouness by the Japanese during WWII (though it sounds like they were not too proficient at using the procedure to inflict severe pain).

And, since I might as well get these off my chest, two more comments on the Bush administration's use of torture (which is the issue that concerns me).

First, despite all the attention that waterboarding has received (mainly, I'd say, because it's so unequivocally a method of torture) I'm not at all convinced it was the worst part of how US prisoners were treated. The use of prolonged stress positions (which, I believe were developed on the theory that having the victim's body inflict pain on itself was helpful in creating submission and a sense of helplessness), isolation, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, etc. etc. may well have longer and worse harmful effects than waterboarding, as bad as that is. Simply because they're more psychologically sophisticated techniques of inflicting suffering than the pulling out of finger nails, does not mean they're not torture. I suspect that if the Bush administration had it to do all over again they might've left out waterboarding as a permitted technique in order to preserve a more plausible deniability of torture.

It's also worth pointing out that several of the detainees in the secret prisions told the Red Cross that suppositories were placed in their anus when they were stripped and inspected, so it seems quite possible that the CIA did try to use some kind of drugs, though I doubt we'll ever be able to confirm that one way or the other. It may be that since, unlike waterboarding (or pulling out fingernails), the use of psychotropic drugs is explicitly listed in the US torture legislation, they were careful about what they did there.

Second, these types of interrogation methods were not restricted to just a few "high-value" detainees. Leaving aside Abu Ghraib (which, despite Cheney's assertions, was surely not a few bad apples run amuck, supposing that apples could run) innocent people in Guantanamo were --- I'll resort to euphemisms here -- treated harshly. Like Murat Kurnaz, whose only "crime" appears to have been to travel to Pakistan to study Islam.

I find the overall lack of outrage in the US at the innocent people who have been hurt in the slash-and-burn, "lose-hearts-and-alienate-minds" policies of the Bush administration almost more astonishing than the arguments about whether waterboarding et. al. really is torture. It's as if whatever happens to "them" does not matter to "us".

[--Pete]

Hi,

In this case I think I would put more weight in the anecdotes of people who have experienced waterboarding as opposed to the anecdotes of the person who posits that their ability to hold their breath for 3 minutes at their leisure has any bearing on how they would react if they were to be put through that procedure.

OK, but consider the logic. Kandrathe claims that there are *some* people who can withstand torture. No number of examples of someone who cannot withstand torture (unless it is the whole population) is proof that he is wrong. One case that can withstand torture would be proof that he is right. Simple logic, and the difference between "for all" and "there exists".

However, I'll admit that I know of no such examples outside of literature and movies. :whistling:

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
OK, but consider the logic. Kandrathe claims that there are *some* people who can withstand torture. No number of examples of someone who cannot withstand torture (unless it is the whole population) is proof that he is wrong. One case that can withstand torture would be proof that he is right. Simple logic, and the difference between "for all" and "there exists".

However, I'll admit that I know of no such examples outside of literature and movies. :whistling:

--Pete

Right, and as the person who made the claim that someone could resist the torture it is on him to prove his case. Saying "i think it's possible" is equally as vaccuous and meaningless unless he is willing to step up and try to prove his hypothesis. As it stands every reported case that has tried to prove what he states has shown the opposite. Anecdote or not, enough of them added together effect the probability of finding an alternate proof.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Right, and as the person who made the claim that someone could resist the torture it is on him to prove his case.

Yes. But given that the Red Cross does not, AFAIK, teach classes at the local Y in torture survival, it might just be hard to find anyone who has had such training *and* is free to speak of it. OTOH, there may just not be anyone like that at all.

As it stands every reported case that has tried to prove what he states has shown the opposite. Anecdote or not, enough of them added together effect the probability of finding an alternate proof.

Not really. The a priory probability of finding someone capable of withstanding torture for a long time is very small (if not zero). Picking people pretty much at random and finding out they are not torture resistant does not add anything to the equation. It is like debating if there is a case of smallpox out there. We know that smallpox has been effectively eradicated. So, we assign a very small number to the probability of a case being found. We do that not from sampling, but from exterior information. Then, if we do sample, we are not surprised, nor do we adjust our estimate, if we find no cases. That is what we predicted. Only if our sample size gets large enough to cast doubt on our original prediction (in the case of smallpox, that would be nearly 100% sampling) or if we get a positive test do we adjust our probabilities. Or, at least, that's my interpretation of the gospel according to Saint Bayes ;)

--Pete

[Jester]

Yes. But given that the Red Cross does not, AFAIK, teach classes at the local Y in torture survival, it might just be hard to find anyone who has had such training *and* is free to speak of it. OTOH, there may just not be anyone like that at all.

The Red Cross doesn't, but the military does: the SERE program trains soldiers to resist torture, or at least to survive in captivity. The accounts I have read from program graduates and trainers have been split on the issue of what is and isn't torture, or whether it should be used. But they're all pretty consistent in saying that they cracked after waterboarding, and that it was the worst (or near-worst) experience of their lives. It is also likely that the 'training' version of waterboarding is less extreme than what might be used in an actual interrogation, although proving that would likely involve seeing the videos that were (whoops!) destroyed.

There may be more intensive programs, whose graduates are forbidden from discussing the results, I don't know. But we can at least say that even elite soldiers, in the SERE training situation, do not seem to be able to resist waterboarding.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Um, I'm not sure what kind of twisted logic you like to use, but an example is merely that, an single data point in a vast universe of data points. Now, I could go hunt up another example to try to counter your example, but that is also fruitless because we'd merely have two data points in the universe of data points.

We are talking about torture here. How many people do you want to see waterboarded to prove a point? As for finding a counter example, don't you think a reporter would have looked for one, before volunteering?

I think you are having the same problem with me, that you did with Pete. You have assumed something that is not true, merely to carry on an argument.

No, I'm just curious if I should see your telling about your abilities as an argument in this discussion, or as anecdote. And in relation to that, if you see waterboarding as cruel torture which should never be applied, or as an acceptable means to extract needed information. Seemingly simple questions, but hard to get a direct answer for.

Let me make clear, btw, that I have little trouble believing you about this ability. There are stranger medical facts than this on record. But imo it has nothing to do with waterboarding, or torture in general.

In my first post I said, that not all torture is the same, and not all reasons for torture are equal. I compared the violent torture used by the sheik in revenge for a deal gone bad, to that used by intelligence professionals to elicit information of future terrorist attacks which may have cost thousands of lives.

I thought the verdict about that incident was that there is no comparing between this barbaric act and modern torture (post #7). The UAE are among the most backward nations in the world when it comes to Human Rights, and I saw no reason to argue there.

But, to get back to your initial question: do *you* think civilized nations should use "enhanced interrogation techniques" to "elicit information of future terrorist attacks which may have cost thousands of lives"? I was assuming you do, but that might have been a mistake. You could ofcourse, also avoid answering by claiming that it depends on the actual technique used. In that case, I'd wonder if desecrating an American flag would be considered 'marmelade' or 'strawberry jam';)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/...ure/index1.html

"In addition to sexual humiliation, psychological duress is a big part of the program and comes in a variety of flavors, including an overall assault on a soldier's values. Mock interrogators desecrated an American flag, stepped on a copy of the Constitution, and 'kicked the Bible around,' the Ranger said"

If you are in favor of 'certain acceptable torture techniques' because they might save lives, you are making the false assumption that they do. I'm sure even Cheney doesn't really believe that. These anecdotes will propably not convince you, but I'm going to show them nevertheless:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6196196.ece

"(Obama) also rebuffed claims that they were necessary to save lives by yielding vital intelligence on al-Qaeda plots."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/...ture/index.html

"An FBI agent testifies that an al-Qaida prisoner provided useful intelligence until the CIA got rough -- and casts doubt on Bush's statements about the effectiveness of harsh interrogations."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/...eney/index.html

"Dick Cheney keeps saying 'enhanced interrogation' was used to stop imminent attacks, but evidence is mounting that the real reason was to invent evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida."

"Cheney now claims that he preserved the country from terrorism and saved thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives. We need a serious investigation, with witnesses including the former vice-president under oath, to determine what he and his associates actually did with the brutal powers they arrogated to themselves -- because instead their actions cost thousands upon thousands of American and Iraqi lives, all in the service of a political lie."

My conclusion was that even though it would be "torturous", knowing that your captors would not let you die would free you to fully submit to unconsciousness without fear of death.

If only that was true. All those evil terrorists would train themselves and make torture ineffective. Our governments would abandon it and we here would have nothing to discuss.

[kandrathe]

I think I'll have to go with a quote from my old friend Pete, "You are a troll. I request that you be banned."

[Zenda]

After reading this, I must admit that my posts do exhibit some 'trollish' traits. Being less belligerent and provocative would do no harm, I suppose. But if I was a real troll, you'd find me also posting in the D2 and WOW forums, explaining why I don't like those games :whistling:

If the name of this site was 'Patriot Lounge' or something like that, you would be absolutely right to accuse me of trolling. But it isn't.

I don't come here to start flame wars. It should be obvious from the subjects that I respond to that there is no hidden agenda, and that I'm really in it for the subject matter itself. Sure, these things happen to be 'hot' topics, but I didn't start any of those threads.

In other words, if you would consider the following LL Forum Rule more often, you would see a lot less of my 'trolling';)

"Avoid hotbutton issues. Basically put, there are some issues and topics that are useless to debate on an Internet forum. You'll never be able to change people's minds on hotbutton political issues such as abortion or gun control. Yet, various people always try to do just that on every forum out there. Here's the deal: many posters try to make a name for themselves by starting a thread on just such an issue just so they can have a special thrill over watching a hundred posts spring up from their inciting topic. They'll then feed the conversation along by constantly nibbling at other posters' arguments. Once the topic has dried up, they'll move on to the next one, and keep doing it for weeks, causing gargantuan threads over and over. This is known as trolling, and the moderators WILL put a stop to you if they catch you in the act."

PS. Personnally I don't always agree with that rule, I only try to respect it as a member. Some topics deserve to be brought up, even if they are likely to cause some unpleasant situations. The current thread is an example to that, imo. Also, real trolls would start such topics to spark controversy while you, I believe, are simply trying to win others over.

[Jester]

I don't come here to start flame wars. It should be obvious from the subjects that I respond to that there is no hidden agenda, and that I'm really in it for the subject matter itself. Sure, these things happen to be 'hot' topics, but I didn't start any of those threads.

There are ways to discuss things which are oppositional and argumentative, but not trolling. The big question is: did my contribution maintain or elevate the discussion, or did it reduce it? Insults, exaggerations, strawmen, "me too" posts, and so forth, devolve threads into worthlessness. Making those kind of posts will often get you accused of trolling. It might not be your intention, but the effect is similar: generating heat, not light.

Read carefully before posting, don't put words in someone's mouth, and avoid making an argument personal. Do those things, and you'll avoid most of the flak you've gotten so far in this thread.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I must admit that my posts do exhibit some 'trollish' traits.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and a civil answer. The reason I consider you a troll is that you constantly take what is said, and either use a part of it out of context or misinterpret it to generate an argument with people who basically agree with you. When it is pointed out to you that you have mistaken (or misquoted) the person's intent, you either ignore those statements, or further twist them to continue your argument.

Perhaps it is a matter of language, perhaps it is one of intellect. I suspect it is a matter of character and that you *are* a troll. But I'm willing, as always, to be proven wrong.

--Pete

[Zenda]

The big question is: did my contribution maintain or elevate the discussion, or did it reduce it? Insults, exaggerations, strawmen, "me too" posts, and so forth, devolve threads into worthlessness.

I didn't come here to 'elevate' discussions, either. Too many people have been doing that, if you ask me, to a point where few dare participate and the rest has to accept 'lurker' status. My reasons are much more mundane than that: to put in my opinion when I disagree with others who do the same.

Insults? I don't keep dragging someones intellect into matters, so I'll assume you mean this in a general sense. Exaggerations? True, I tend to project arguments that I perceive as silly into absurdity. Not a nice habit, but I do try to keep it somewhat humerous, and I never do it with numbers or other traceble facts. I do realize, now, that my 'exaggerations' might have been misunderstood, so I'll try to make it as clear as Pete's Hotel-and-breakfast example, next time. Strawmen? Honestly, I know nothing about strawmen, except that Pete has accused me of it before, and that you and Pete were accusing eachother earlier of using (being?) one. Could you explain what it is? "Me too" posts? I may be guilty of having made such posts, but always with something in addition or to make something clear. My number of "Great post, Pete!" replies will not be very large, though:)

Read carefully before posting, don't put words in someone's mouth, and avoid making an argument personal. Do those things, and you'll avoid most of the flak you've gotten so far in this thread.

Well, English isn't my native language and I'm not above interpreting words wrongly, so it would help if you guys keep things a bit more comprehensible, sometimes. I'm sure that will also help in the 'put words in mouth' department. As for the flak, don't worry about me. This is only a forum, after all, and if it gets out of hand some moderator will surely step in :unsure:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Strawmen?

Took me about a minute to find this.

--Pete

[Zenda]

Took me about a minute to find this.

Ah, is that it. Thank you for the quick help, Pete.

I never suspected there would be a Wiki page on 'Strawman'. There might not even be a Dutch equivalent of the word, afaik. The examples, especially those on universal healthcare and the war in Iraq, showed me that it's important to know about it, though.

Then again, we must never forget about argument from fallacy, which basically means that someone who uses wrong arguments can still be right:)

[Jester]

Then again, we must never forget about argument from fallacy, which basically means that someone who uses wrong arguments can still be right:)

Their conclusions can be true. Just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean we should check our stopped clocks to see what time it is.

-Jester

[eppie]

Ah, is that it. Thank you for the quick help, Pete.

I never suspected there would be a Wiki page on 'Strawman'. There might not even be a Dutch equivalent of the word, afaik. The examples, especially those on universal healthcare and the war in Iraq, showed me that it's important to know about it, though.

Finally, the day has come that I can tell somebody on the lounge about something on internet that I know and the other person doesn't.:)

Zenda, on wikipedia you can find the word in other languages....as long as somebody made a page about it in the language you are interested in. Strawman spells Stropopredenering in dutch......a much nicer word indeed. (but I must admit, I had never heard of it)

It is something you find very often on the lounge by the way. :blink:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Then again, we must never forget about argument from fallacy, which basically means that someone who uses wrong arguments can still be right:)

Yes, but even if right, they weaken the position. Which is why, as I've said before, I'd rather have a brilliant opponent than a stupid supporter. :whistling:

--Pete

[Zenda]

Their conclusions can be true. Just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean we should check our stopped clocks to see what time it is.

Now which fallacy would that be?;)

You are right, it does not mean we should check stopped clocks to see what time it is. That's not what I said. But I could have said that you shouldn't declare the time on a clock false, just because it stopped. Like you said, twice a day it is correct. I would suggest, though, from a scientific point of view, that the information gained from reading the stopped clock is invalid, and should be discarded to eliminate statistical 'contamination'.

To avoid possible misunderstandings, let me make clear that my mentioning of argument fallacy was in relation to the strawman examples from Wiki. If someone brings the bad functioning of Communism as an argument to a discussion on universal healthcare it would be a strawman, but they could still be right about the primairy question (and on the functioning of Communism too, for that matter). It was not saying that I would still be right if I was to use a strawman.

Stropopredenering

Never heard of it, too. Thanks, Eppie.

Which is why, as I've said before, I'd rather have a brilliant opponent than a stupid supporter.

Let me assume this is directed at me and my viewpoint on torture, and explain how I see it.

I doubt you'd ever call me a brilliant opponent, so you must be saying I support you. This is not the case. Even if the line for 'acceptable techniques' was placed somewhere between house-arrest and jail, I would still oppose it. Not on moral grounds, but for practical reasons: information gained is useless, but it can be abused. Imo, a discussion along these lines would have been less fruitless then trying to establish the boundaries of torture, but it's too late for that.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Let me assume . . .

ass/u/me

EDIT:{edit removed -- brevity *is* the soul of wit}EDIT

--Pete

[Jester]

ass/u/me

[tangent]

It's funny. Looking at your pic, (ass/u/ming that's your pic), you look surprisingly like a chemistry teacher I once had, who taught me that phrase. He hated me, and I hated him. I thought he was a pompous ass, and he thought I "lacked academic maturity." I've since come to appreciate that he was pretty good teacher, although not a good fit for me. I doubt he has since come to appreciate anything about me, although it's clear I'm a heck of a lot more academic than he ever thought. (Mature, maybe not.)

Just thought it was an interesting coincidence.
[/tangent]

-Jester