When I was in (72-75) I was taught something called the 5 S's of prisoner handling. Seperate,Search,Secure,Safeguard,Speed to the rear.
Carl
I wasn't implying anything. I am simply saying that failing to provide a definition of something that you are making illegal is not a good practice. Troops have to know their parameters since someone could likely face a trial for screwing up (you know, all that due process and constitutional stuff).
Troops that constantly hesitate because they fear prosecution are more likely to get themselves or someone else hurt. I've seen this with ROE. Troops need a clear mission and a clear understanding of the tools available for the accomplishment of that mission. That being said, your proposal to use law enforcement parameters for questioning is perfectly acceptable. I believe there is alot we can borrow from that arena given the law enforcement nature of the war on terror.
The 5 S's
When I was in (72-75) I was taught something called the 5 S's of prisoner handling. Seperate,Search,Secure,Safeguard,Speed to the rear.
We're still taught those at SOI.
Our Cage
In First Division Interrogatin School in 1963 we were taught that not only was torture illegal, it was also a waste of time and generated bad info.
JHR
Looks like there are two questions here:
Is torture effective?
Is torture wrong?
--
On question one how do you all know torture isn't effective if none of you have done it?
On question two where in the bible or any other moral text does it say torture is wrong? Or is this just something pulled from the Geneva conventions?
I don't think that there are two questions here. Most, if not all, of us agree that torture produces unreliable info. The only question that I can see is "What constitutes torture?" There seems to be quite a few here who think that anything even mildly unpleasant constitutes torture. I disagree whole-heartedly. We are not police. When we capture someone, it is not because he committed some petty crime. It is because we have reason to believe that he is responsible for or at least involved with the insurgency. Even the lowest nug will know something even if it is just the guy who gave him his orders. Someone said incarceration is unpleasant enough. I would agree that SOMETIMES incarceration or the threat thereof is enough. For many others it is not. Most of them know to keep their mouths shut and just wait out their time. Again I ask, if their time in detention is not really that bad then why should they talk?
This is a strawman argument. If this technique is taken to the extreme then yes that can happen but since we are not in the business of getting people to sign "political statements" it wouldn't really serve much purpose to carry it to that extreme would it? It would be far more benificial to simply make him tired and miserable. Provide information and the misery abates. It is simply the carrot and the stick. But that only works when there is a stick. If all we have are carrots then it just doesn't work that well. Any technique can be carried to the extreme and abused. That is why we train our interogators and only allow them to use these techniques.Sleep deprivation results in hallucinations, waking dreams, incoherency, psychosis and paranoia. It is useful in getting people to sign political statements that they are enemies of the state. It is not useful in getting reliable, timely information. It has been used in Soviet Gulags, Latin American dictatorships and Chinese prisons, nearly always in connection with breaking the will of political prisoners. Using this technique, the name and location you get might end up being Peter Pan, third star from left and sail on til morning.
One final thing. I am aware that there is evidence that torture does not provide reliable info. My question is is there any evidence that these techniques do not produce reliable info? The arguments I am seeing here seem to be "Torture is unreliable. These techniques are torture. Ergo these techniques are unreliable." The first statement is based on fact. The second is based on oppinion. That invalidates the third in the absence of facts to support it.
SFC W
First off, lets all be clear that the situation is a hard, committed source who is not about to break for an untrained, inexperienced or barely-capable interrogator.Originally Posted by VinceC
Sleep deprivation results in hallucinations, waking dreams, incoherency, psychosis and paranoia. It is useful in getting people to sign political statements that they are enemies of the state. It is not useful in getting reliable, timely information. It has been used in Soviet Gulags, Latin American dictatorships and Chinese prisons, nearly always in connection with breaking the will of political prisoners. Using this technique, the name and location you get might end up being Peter Pan, third star from left and sail on til morning.
What you two are getting at from two directions are the differences I mentioned earlier regarding sleep deprivation vs sleep disruption. As LawVol stated in one of his posts, clear definitions are important.
Sleep deprivation means not permitting the source any sleep at all. Period. In order to keep the source awake it is necessary to continually monitor the source and to intervene at any moment he appears to be nodding off. This can be done by using shifts of interrogators to maintain an intensive interrogation virtually non-stop, with the source's breaks taken standing, under guard. This is manpower intensive. The easier method is to mix interrogation sessions with stress positions, white noise and temperature extremes to maintain a level of discomfort enough to prevent the source from sleeping. The end result is what Vince described. You may get something of limited value, but it will be garbled, unreliable and effective follow-up with the source will be impossible.
Sleep disruption is more along the lines of what SFC W is describing - making the source tired and miserable. There are two ways of using this method. The first is very basic: The first 48 to 72 hours that the source is in custody, he isn't interrogated; but his sleep is continually interrupted for "administrative" reasons. Of course, he is processed into the detention facility as normal, what I am referring to is waking him to move him to a different cell, conducting the screening interview in parts, etc. etc. During this period, he should be under continual observation by the interrogator(s), who will learn a great deal about the source through his reactions - and should be able to effectively exploit the source following this period.
The other variation on this theme is reserved for certain truly difficult sources. Using this method, the interrogator (or team) maintains the same schedule as their source - its important to have the same individual(s) dealing with the source throughout. Interrogation sessions take place at irregular intervals, morning, noon, and night. The source gets some sleep - but no regular schedule is permitted. Of course, this is hard on the interrogators - because as they get tired as well, it becomes more difficult to effectively apply the kinesic and cognitive skills necessary to fully exploit the source. This is a true battle of the wills, and can only be implemented successfully by highly experienced and capable interrogators.
As I stated before, a clear line has to be drawn between sleep deprivation and sleep disruption. And, even though sleep disruption can be a useful technique, it is but one in the interrogator's tool box and can not be used effectively with all sources. In any case, no TTP substitutes for the interrogator's kinesic and cognitive skills - they may augment those skills, but in the end it is the kinesic and cognitive skills that enable the interrogator to break the source.
Of course, not mentioned, but absolutely critical, is effective intelligence support to interrogation. You need intel to get intel. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
I agree whole heartedly agree but I have heartburn with taking effective tools out of the 'gators toolbox just because some people find them objectionable.
SFC W
I don't know exactly which "effective tools" you want retained, but if they enrage the populace of Iraq and Afghanistan, cause the citizens of the United States to question whether we are on the side of evil or good, bring moral opprobrium down upon our country and tempt young, inexperienced people into sadistic behavior; I think these "tools" are best discarded.
Carl, both extremes have been visited. On the side you are referring to, in the past there have been formal permissions given for the use of methods that are either unquestionably illegal, or teeter so close to the edge that they shouldn't be considered. As has been discussed on SWC, this is not only wrong and degrades our soldiers, but it is a tremendous strategic liability.
On the other hand, what SFC W is referring to - overreaction by commanders to negative perceptions of interrogation ops - has definitely occurred. In some cases this has reduced interrogations to nothing more than an interview. This can be a significant operational and tactical liability.
In essence, this is a leadership problem. Commanders need to fully understand the capabilities of their interrogation assets, and the legal parameters within which they must operate. Moving back and forth between overly-broad permissions and knee-jerk imposition of restrictions does nothing for effective collection. This stands true for HUMINT ops in general; not just interrogation.
Given the discussion I'd break down the question into two parts:
Is torture effective at gettting the information you want?
Is torture effective at the strategic level - winning hearts and minds?
Last edited by astyanax; 05-19-2007 at 11:53 PM.
I assert that there is little "repeating of conventional wisdom" here on SWC. Most of the individuals who have been discussing these topics at length are professionals, with significant operational experience, much of it in the COE. You have yet to introduce yourself on this board.
The days of colonialism are over. When we do intervene, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, "ruling" is overstating the case, and ruling by fear is not an option.
However, putting fear into the bad guys by effectively disrupting their networks, capturing and killing them is a different thing altogether.
When we discuss the "strategic level", we are referring to the world-wide impact of our actions. Even putting aside questions of tactical effectiveness, the use of torture by our troops, or our support (or even silent nodding approval) of the use of torture by our coalition partners, significantly detracts from our legitimacy as a beacon of representative democracy on the world stage. It puts any statements or complaints we make about human rights and other nations appear deeply hypocritical. It thus has a large negative impact upon our operational effectiveness and becomes an obstacle to effective foreign policy. Not to mention that it becomes a huge positive addition to the bad guys' IO campaign - which results in an increase in recruits and more civilians providing both passive and active support to their operational networks.
I perceive that you seem to have engaged in a bit of selective reading of the previous threads, where your two questions are most certainly answered. Also on those earlier threads, the subject of Algiers was discussed at length. Most tend to recognize tactical gain and strategic failure ensuing from the widespread use of torture in that campaign. Not to mention the deleterious effects it had upon the institution of the French miltary.
I caution you about approaching this subject with an agenda.
Jedburgh,
If I have an agenda it is only to explore the issue more fully and to ask relevant questions to those who possess significant operational experience.
I acknowledge your point about tactical gain and strategic failure. Sorry if I am disturbing you or anybody else by asking these questions.
Soviet-Style ‘Torture’ Becomes ‘Interrogation’
This may add something to the discussion.
June 3 New York Times Soviet-Style ‘Torture’ Becomes ‘Interrogation’ by Scott Shane
HOW did the United States, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, come to adopt interrogation techniques copied from the Soviet Union and other cold war adversaries?
Investigators for the Senate Armed Services Committee are examining how the methods, long used to train Americans for what they may face as prisoners of war, became the basis for American interrogations.
In 2002, the C.I.A. and the Pentagon became concerned that standard questioning was inadequate for suspected terrorists and turned to a military training program called Survival, Evasion, Reconnaissance and Escape, or SERE. For decades, SERE trainers had exposed aviators and others at high risk for capture to Soviet-style tactics, including disrupted sleep, exposure to extreme heat and cold, and hours in uncomfortable stress positions. Sometimes the ordeal included waterboarding, in which a prisoner’s face is covered with cloth and water is poured from above to create a feeling of suffocation.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks