It's Our Cage, Too

[carl]

509

It is morally wrong to torture people. By quibling about definitions, you are leaping off the cliff that Tom speaks of and you are setting up troops in confused circumstances for big trouble; that is the situation the two generals speak of.

To say this or that isn't really torture, but it hurts them just enough to make them talk, is trying to have it both ways. You are intentionally hurting them for your ends. That to me is acceptance of torture as legitimate.

In the US, detention in and of itself is the punishment. Just being locked up is unpleasant. A guy who gets picked up on Saturday morning for a $200 traffic warrant and can't see the judge until Monday morning shouldn't be put through a wringer.

[Uboat509]

509

A guy who gets picked up on Saturday morning for a $200 traffic warrant and can't see the judge until Monday morning shouldn't be put through a wringer.

1)The guy who gets picked up on a 200$ traffic warrant isn't planting IEDs.

2)It does not matter if the rank and file joes understand the difference between torture and legitimate interogation techniques. It has never been within their purview to gain information from detainees. That is why we have trained interogators.

SFC W

[DavidPB4]

The question in the recent candidates debate was not the ethics of routine interrogation but the ethics of torture in an apocalyptical situation, in which one or more U.S. cities stood in imminent danger of being nuked by terrorists. The problem is that if our national security stands or falls on whether we can torture one or two people, then for all practical purposes we no longer have any national security, since there can be no 100 percent effective way to intercept all terrorists with nukes.

This is not the thread to debate the larger problem of a world in which terrorists have access to nuclear weapons. But the question debated by the candidates makes it sound as if we might be secure in such a world if we remove all restraints on interrogation. Maybe we could intercept and disarm the nuclear threat that one time, but quite apart from the ethical consequences that the two generals so properly raise in their article, I do not see how a policy of torturing captured terrorists can make us secure in the longer run even in its own terms.

[VinceC]

The scenario of the ticking bomb is precisely the one least likely to be solved by torture. The individual in custody is presumed to be highly committed to the attack. He or she knows that by just waiting long enough, the attack will occur and the mission will succeed.

It's exactly the same as all those World War II movies where the hero is interogated by the bad guys but does not reveal the time and place of the DDay landings.

Members of the American military collectively have a strong respect for the Christian religion as a contributing element to Western civilization and values. Those familiar with Christianity and its early history of persecutions and saints should be able to respect the tremendously powerful draw that martyrdom has had on some individuals and that being tortured, in some contexts and mindsets, can amplify an individual's sense of rightious self-sacrifice. Roman occupiers tortured a lot of Christian insurgents, which had the effect of strengthening the insurgency.

[LawVol]

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.

[slapout9]

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.

[tequila]

We're still taught those at SOI.

[JHR]

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

[astyanax]

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?

[Jedburgh]

Looks like there are two questions here:

Is torture effective?

Is torture wrong?

Astyanax,

This thread is already beating a much-worn horse here on SWC. Please review previous discussions here, here and here, and then come back with more specific questions - or add to the existing discussions in the linked threads.

[astyanax]

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?

[Uboat509]

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?

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.

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.

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

[Jedburgh]

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.

...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.

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.

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.