Law and the Long War

**Schmedlap** · 07-11-2009

I just started reading a book on legal issues surrounding our operations since 9/11. There is a brief vignette in the introduction. I would be interested in reactions from the board to this tale of interrogation because I think it is useful to consider as we ponder legal foundations for our actions against non-state actors or proxies.

For those who already read the book or otherwise recognize the vignette and know the punch-line (which I will reveal later), please do not give it away, yet. I'm curious to see reactions from those who are unfamiliar with it.

Here is an edited excerpt...

"The terrorist mastermind had slipped through their fingers before, and American forces were not about to let it happen again... Unable to track him down, they managed instead to locate and detain his wife... For several days, they interrogated her at an air base, but she repeatedly insisted that he was dead. Finally, they tried a new tactic. They noisily put a plane on a nearby runway, its engines running. As the commanding officer later recalled: 'We then informed [her] that the plane was there to take her three sons to [a repressive country nearby] unless she told us where her husband was... If she did not do this then she would have ten minutes to say goodbye to her sons...' Having threatened, in essence, to kill her sons - for nobody doubted what the secret police would do to them when they arrived at their destination - the interrogators got the information they wanted. And they got their man, disguised as a farm laborer, that evening."
- Benjamin Wittes, "Law and the Long War," page 1.

Do you think this technique is moral or ethical or otherwise sound practice? Why or why not?
Do you have an opinion on the legality of this technique (whether it is or should be legal, etc)?
Again, if you already read the book or know the punch-line, please refrain from commenting until others weigh in. I'm curious to see reactions. For those who do not know the punch-line - don't worry, this isn't a game of gotcha.

**Rifleman** · 07-11-2009

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Do you think this technique is moral or ethical or otherwise sound practice?

Yes.

Why or why not?

I don't understand how it's any different than other forms of deception and trickery that are commonly used in warfare.

Do you have an opinion on the legality of this technique (whether it is or should be legal, etc)?

I think it's legal; courts have ruled that deception and trickery are legal to use in a criminal investigation.

You can bluff in the interrogation room. You can use props. You can claim to have information that you don't have. You can double team and tag team using the age old "good cop, bad cop." If you were interrogating an illegal alien you could even mention the possiblity for deportation for the subject or the subject's family. Duress is permitted up to a point - different cops have different opinions about it's usefulness but it is permitted.

And this is in policing. Am I to believe this shouldn't be allowed in warfare?

**jmm99** · 07-11-2009

1. The extraordinary rendition to a third party, more than willing to torture and kill the three sons, is a reality. The interrogators' friend has both the means and intent to render (pun intended) the sons and carry out the threat.

or to up the ante even a bit more ...

2. The interrogators are made of stronger stuff and don't need a third party to do their work. They are able and willing to carry out the threat themselves.

and, finally, if the threat does not work ...

3. The interrogators execute the threat by successively torturing and then killing each of the three sons.

Do these altered facts change the answers ?

**Ken White** · 07-11-2009

STARTS:Written 2040 CDT, 10 Jul 09 but I'm not going to be the first to post...

Here's the unedited reponse.

Do you think this technique is moral or ethical or otherwise sound practice? Why or why not?

Marginally moral, not enough information to form a total moral evaluation. Regardless, it is not sound practice and I would not do it for the very practical reason that no one man is ever likely to be that importan as this action would almost certainly be disclosed. IOW, don't do it, probable result is not worth the potential downstream hassle.

Do you have an opinion on the legality of this technique (whether it is or should be legal, etc).

I do not think it should be illegal -- there are too many unenforceable laws about, we don't need one more. It should however IMO be discouraged or regulatorily prohibited for the reasons I stated above. If the punch line is what I suspect, I'll still go with the decision above.

:ENDS