Article

2005-01-07 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 1:51:51 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Good commentary. The fact is that we will never really know if torture produces any meaningful results. For one simple reason: Who is going to admit that they committed torture?

Torture is absolutely called for in select situations. It's the overly timid and politically protective members of Congress and the Senate who refuse to face reality and set the appropriate parameters underwhich torture can justifiably be applied.

Case in point: Let's assume for a moment that the one of the 9/11 highjackers were apprehended and that there was reason to believe that he knew of the looming threat. Now, which member of Congress or the Senate, or any of the foolish MSM armed chair generals, wouldn't call for selective stress techiques or torture to prevent the loss of innocent lives?

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-07 2:31:23 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:31:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Case in point: Let's assume for a moment that the one of the 9/11 highjackers were apprehended and that there was reason to believe that he knew of the looming threat. Now, which member of Congress or the Senate, or any of the foolish MSM armed chair generals, wouldn't call for selective stress techiques or torture to prevent the loss of innocent lives?

Yup, then it would be legitimate. One could argue that is PRECISELY why it was foolish, and criminal, to use these techniques to find out, say, the location of an arms cache in Iraq. NOW we may well be stuck with a rigid set of rules that will prevent us from using these techniques in the extreme case where we really need to, and where they are obviously justified. Something that should have been kept in reserve for just such an emergency.

There, ive pissed off both sides, I suspect.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-07 2:51:06 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:51:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The question of whether or not torture produces only lies depends on whether there iis actual truth to be found out. Torture by the inquisition produced 99% lies because the things they were looking for didn't exist, and people were tortured until they confessed to something satisfactory to the torturers. Physical torture can produce mixed results depending on the skill of the person using it, which in times past was usually very low. Psychological pressure such as sleep deprivation can be effective if the person is not stressed to the point of becoming psychotic. Am I against it? No. But like many other things, it requires some skill, and isn't exactly part of general college curriculum.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-01-07 2:54:00 PM|| 2005-01-07 2:54:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 There was a practical experience during the Algeria war, when reasoned use of torture (ie torture a guy you have overwhelming proof he is guilty) in order to get his complices. Terrorism decreased radically and the insurgency was put on its knees. In other words it didn't just produce lies: hundreds of bombings, machine gunnings and massacres were prevented.

BTW, some people here have shown sympathy for the FLN because they opposed the French. In fact they were a mix of Baathist and Al Quaida. They put bombs in school busses, machine gunned merry-go-rounds (at Boufarik) and massacred entire villages with appalling savagery and sadism. Not only the French were the victims but also any Algerian who wasn't pro-insurgency or partisan from non-FLN insurgent movements. Did I mention that the Arab bracnch of FLN turned the leaders of the Berber branch to the French in order to become the rulers after independency?

Disclaimer: I don't condone the use of torture to find if someone is guilty but to extract information from the guilty in order to prevent deaths.

Disclaimer second: There is a danger in torture. Ideally you want it done by good guys who want to prevent murders and not the suffering of the suspect. But no matter how justified the good guys will become sick of it, while sadists will make their utmost to get the job. These will do a lot of political damage.

Posted by JFM 2005-01-07 3:02:08 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:02:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 LH You didn't PO me. In extreme cases where we really need to, we will still torture. But before doing it, someone will think twice and consider the consequences they are risking. If it was that extreme they'll probably get a slap on the wrist or a discharge and the Medal of Freedom.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-07 3:10:48 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:10:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 JFM: Good post!

Authorized, highly selective use of torture has a deterrent affect. Now imagine, in the 9/11 scenario, had the guy who was training on aircraft in Phoenix "the Phoenix memo" or the guy caught by the FBI in Minneapolis been handled appropriately. Then you would have had one or two guys with considerable evidence of ill intent (high volume of chatter and the guy in Minnesota only wanting to learn take-offs and landings).

But if all you were to do was to take them into custody, hand them the Holy Book, and point them in the direction of Mecca for prayers, you would still not have anything to work with.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-07 3:51:48 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:51:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 MD: In extreme cases where we really need to, we will still torture. But before doing it, someone will think twice and consider the consequences they are risking. If it was that extreme they'll probably get a slap on the wrist or a discharge and the Medal of Freedom.

Actually, in extreme cases, no one will carry out torture without authorization. Why risk jail time and the loss of your pension because your nation thinks your livelihood and personal freedom is worth less than a terrorist's well-being? We had Moussaoui in custody - and the agents-in-charge did not even illegally search his laptop - which contained information about about 9/11 - let alone torture him.

The only circumstances under which a government employee might torture a suspect are (1) that suspect is holding his relatives hostage or (2) that employee will be placed on trial and executed if a successful terrorist attack occurs on his watch. Since neither situation is very likely, terror suspects will *not* be tortured unless explicit legal authorization is given. If we don't care enough about our security services to give them the tools they need, they won't care enough about us to do what is necessary to prevent terrorism. Period.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 5:32:56 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 5:32:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 JFM: There is a danger in torture. Ideally you want it done by good guys who want to prevent murders and not the suffering of the suspect. But no matter how justified the good guys will become sick of it, while sadists will make their utmost to get the job. These will do a lot of political damage.

I disagree. That's like saying that hunters and soldiers are sadists, since they actually kill or train to kill living things. Getting information out of people is just another job. Some are good at it, and some are less good. Some are mentally ill and some are not. The idea that those who enjoy getting information out of the enemy are sick is akin to the idea that those who enjoy hunting or soldiering are sick.

The guy who dropped the atomic bomb was elated about it because he thought the Japanese were getting what they deserved. That did not make him sick - it made him rational - the only way to stop the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans was to get the Japanese to surrender. And so it is with torture. It is just another tool in the toolbox to be opened only against enemies too foul for American restraint.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 5:45:37 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 5:45:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 What I find amazing is that if someone just shot a terrorist, s/he would have relatively fewer questions to answer. But, all hell would befall someone who uses selective stress or torture to extract intelligence during a "ticking timebomb" scenario.

"That a load of bull," William Jefferson Clinton.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-07 6:20:44 PM|| 2005-01-07 6:20:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#10
Torture sometimes, even often compels people to tell the truth.

Torture sometimes, even often compels people to tell lies.

Torture is convenient for the subordinate interrogator who is able to provide a statement to his superior. The interrogator is able to produce relatively large numbers of reports relatively quickly. Whether the reports are true or valuable - or whether they are false and useless - is difficult to evaluate.

The interrogator who refrains from torture might produce fewer reports, more slowly. Whether his reports are true or valuable - or whether they are false and useless - is difficult to evaluate.

In the end, we have to depend to a great deal on the credibility of the interrogator. Do we believe the interrogator who tortures, or do we believe the interrogator who does not torture?

Do we believe the prisoner who was tortured into giving a statement? Or do we believe the prisoner who was not tortured into giving a statement?

What do we think about the reliability of the information that was obtained through torture by, for example, the Soviet Union? Has that information been considered by by society and by historians to be mostly reliable? Was that information ultimately judged even by the communist governments to be mostly reliable? Or has it been judged by most people to be mostly unreliable?

Do we believe, for example, that Bukharin conspired with Germany and Japan to overthrow the Soviet Government to establish a fascist dictatorship? After all, that's what he himself testified at his trial.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-07 6:51:32 PM|| 2005-01-07 6:51:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#11
Many of the people who are assigned to interrogate people are relatively young and incompetent.

In the case of Iraq, many of our interrogators are in their early 20s, have only a high school education, and speak Arabic poorly or not at all. Some of them graduated from high school, joined the US Army, attended a language school there for a year or two, and then were sent to Iraq to interrogate people. They are not able to conduct an intelligent conversation with a captured Iraqi who does not want to cooperate.

Some of our interrogators are American citizens who grew up in the United States, in families where Arabic was spoken at home. They speak Arabic fluently, but they speak household Arabic, sprinkled heavily with English words. They are not educated in the Arabic language. They graduated from a US high school, joined the US Army, and now they are in Iraq, assigned to help interrogate prisoners.

Some interrogators are older, some have developed more mastery of the language. Some are more educated. Some are more thoughtful. Some are more experienced.

The older, more educated, more linguistically capable, more thoughtful, more experienced interrogators are less likely to think that torturing prisoners is a proper method. These interrogators will persist in trying to engage the prisoners in real conversation resulting in statements that the interrogator himself evaluates to be really truthful.

If we establish torture as an acceptable method, then that method will be used most quickly, most frequently, most stupidly by the younger, less educated, less capable interrogators, whose numbers are larger.

Such methods will be used not only by the interrogators, such methods will be used also by the guards, by the capturing soldiers, and by everyone else who has opportunities to interact with prisoners. Decisions about whether or not to physically abuse prisoners will be made by the lowest ranking guard on the midnight shift in the worst part of the worst prison.

During the past 12 years, I have translated a large number of interrogation reports written by Soviet interrogators during the years after World War Two. It's obvious that the interrogators were, in general, uneducated and stupid. They were probably pretty good torturers, though, because they wrote a lot of reports. In many cases, it's practically the same report written over and over and over, with just the names changed.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-07 7:16:38 PM|| 2005-01-07 7:16:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The masochist said beat me and make it hurt. The sadist said "NO."

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-07 7:20:35 PM|| 2005-01-07 7:20:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 MS: Do we believe, for example, that Bukharin conspired with Germany and Japan to overthrow the Soviet Government to establish a fascist dictatorship? After all, that's what he himself testified at his trial.

The test of truth, whether with or without torture, is corroboration. The fact that a terrorist is tortured for information doesn't mean that logic and other investigative techniques are thrown out the window. Torture is just another method of getting information, just like forensics, normal interrogation, questioning of witnesses, uncoerced confessions, etc. In my view, to compare a well-regulated terror investigation in a democracy to a kangaroo court in the Soviet Union is just inappropriate. The point of the kangaroo court was to get Stalin's enemies executed - whereas the point of our investigations is to find arms caches and potential accomplices. The guilt or innocence of captives can be verified by the normal investigative technique of comparing their stories and having separate sets of investigators interrogate them.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 7:24:34 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 7:24:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#14
We can imagine various extraodinary crises in which we might make extraordinary decisions and use extraordinary methods. Suppose we knew for certain that someone had placed a nuclear bomb in New York City and that the bomb would explode in 24 hours. In such a situation we well might decide to torture the prisoner to force him to reveal the bomb's location.

Thus we can justify torture.

Suppose that everyone in the world died except for two people -- a father and a daughter. Such a situation might justify incestual rape.

In general, though, we make rules that apply well to most situations, rules that are broadly accepted by society, rules that have stood the tests of time, rules that are fairly clear to the people who must obey and implement them.

People who break rules almost always can provide some compelling justification. He had to rob the bank, because otherwise his wife and children would have starved to death. He had to kill that guy, because it was self-defense. He was a hero, saving lives and defending honor.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-07 7:47:14 PM|| 2005-01-07 7:47:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#15
Re #13 (Zhang Fei): The test of truth, whether with or without torture, is corroboration.

Bukharin's confession was corroborated by the confessions of his many co-conspirators.

And interrogators who torture prisoners naturally collaborate with investigators who falsify evidence. The tortured confessions justify the falsification of the evidence. The falsified evidence justifies the tortured confessions. It's a complete system, praised by many. The Soviets thought it was a great system for a half a century, until they realized they really didn't know at all any more who was guilty and who was innocent.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-07 7:53:10 PM|| 2005-01-07 7:53:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#16
The interrogator who doesn't torture often tells his superior he couldn't get any information from the prisoner.

The interrogator who does torture can always boast to his superior that he was able to get information from the prisoner.

Which interrogator should we believe?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-07 8:06:38 PM|| 2005-01-07 8:06:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 MS: Bukharin's confession was corroborated by the confessions of his many co-conspirators. And interrogators who torture prisoners naturally collaborate with investigators who falsify evidence. The tortured confessions justify the falsification of the evidence. The falsified evidence justifies the tortured confessions. It's a complete system, praised by many. The Soviets thought it was a great system for a half a century, until they realized they really didn't know at all any more who was guilty and who was innocent.

Is Mike Sylwester saying that the gulag system and Stalin's systematic killings of his political rivals were the result of misunderstandings brought on by torture? My understanding is different - that torture was used to effect the confessions necessary to make the mass executions politically palatable. The reality of despotic rule is that the only way for contenders to take power is by displacing by force the existing ruler. Stalin massacre of potential rivals was not particularly unique - except for the fact that it took place in the 20th century, in a country that had pretensions to being civilized. Under Stalin, Russia resembled nothing so much as an oriental despotism. Torture wasn't used for investigative purposes - and it wasn't the reason for the gulags and the mass executions. It was used to produce politically convenient confessions that could be used as an excuse to kill political rivals, real or imagined.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 8:11:47 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 8:11:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 MS: The interrogator who doesn't torture often tells his superior he couldn't get any information from the prisoner. The interrogator who does torture can always boast to his superior that he was able to get information from the prisoner. Which interrogator should we believe?

The ultimate test is whether that information produces results - arms caches, prisoners who corroborate the story, etc. Mike Sylwester assumes that our investigators are corrupt and get together to fabricate evidence. How does this differ from normal investigations? Should we then empty our prisons and disband our police departments, given that none of the evidence they produce is trustworthy?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 8:16:26 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 8:16:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 What I am pointing out is that the defects Mike Sylwester are attributing to torture are defects in individual investigative personnel, not in using torture as a technique. The investigator who would get together with another to make up fake testimony just to rack up a high success rate doesn't need torture to achieve his ends - he could just as easily fabricate evidence without torture. He assumes a system so corrupt that it cannot be trusted to conduct investigations with or without torture. In other words, he assumes that terrorists are innocent, while our investigators are presumptively guilty.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 8:29:12 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 8:29:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 *Sigh* Actually, Sylwester's a hypocrite too: here he is, presumably arguing against torture, while inflicting it at the same time with his many words...

Posted by Ptah 2005-01-07 10:26:15 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-01-07 10:26:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#21
Responding to Zhang Fei:

My understanding is different - that torture was used to effect the confessions necessary to make the mass executions politically palatable.

Torture was used to obtain information to prevent terrorist attacks against the Soviet Union.

Torture wasn't used for investigative purposes

Sure it was.

The ultimate test is whether that information produces results - arms caches, prisoners who corroborate the story, etc.

The ultimate test is whether a policy allowing torture is better than a policy forbidding torture. Which policy provides more information? Which policy provides more reliable information? Which policy encourages more of the enemy to change to our side? Which policy causes more general political support for our side in the combat theater and abroad? Which policy develops more international support for our side? Which policy is easier to implement and manage? Which policy causes fewer problems, scandals and protests? There are many considerations.

Take two groups of 100 prisoners. Interrogate one group using torture and one group not using torture. The first group will get some information. So will the second group. Why are you so sure that the first group's information will be better?

Mike Sylwester assumes that our investigators are corrupt and get together to fabricate evidence.

People adjust evidence all the time. When people are sued because someone had an accident, all kinds of memories, statements, analyses and physical items are adjusted by normally honest people.

When policemen and investigators are certain that someone is guilty, they too sometimes adjust their memories, statements, analyses and physical items.

In a climate where military interrogators are so certain of their captives guilt that they feel free to torture their captives, other investigators will also adjust memories, statements, analyses and physical items. The main goal is no longer the determination of objective truth. Instead the main goal becomes the confirmation of the preconceived judgment.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-08 12:15:54 AM|| 2005-01-08 12:15:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 MS: The ultimate test is whether a policy allowing torture is better than a policy forbidding torture. Which policy provides more information?

How about *any* information at all? What happens when the prisoner won't talk and simply stonewalls? Remember Zacarias Moussaoui?

MS: Which policy provides more reliable information?

How about no information at all, when torture is not applied?

MS: Which policy encourages more of the enemy to change to our side?

Lack of torture helps this along? Can you prove this? Or are you just making it up? Is Mike Sylwester saying that governments use torture as an interrogation tool because that's how they get their jollies rather because it works?

MS: Which policy causes more general political support for our side in the combat theater and abroad? Which policy develops more international support for our side?

And this political support has gotten us exactly what? 1300 dead troops in Iraq?

MS Which policy is easier to implement and manage? Which policy causes fewer problems, scandals and protests?

It is easy to implement and manage and there are fewer problems, scandals and protests when torture is legalized and regulated for use against terrorists, rather than swept under the carpet.

MS: There are many considerations. Take two groups of 100 prisoners. Interrogate one group using torture and one group not using torture. The first group will get some information. So will the second group. Why are you so sure that the first group's information will be better?

This is an empirical question. The results will speak for themselves - if the first group gets more arms caches and more terrorists, then it will become readily apparent that torture works. If it is acceptable to kill and blow up head-chopping terrorists, it can't be such a breach of etiquette to merely torture them.

MS: People adjust evidence all the time. When people are sued because someone had an accident, all kinds of memories, statements, analyses and physical items are adjusted by normally honest people. When policemen and investigators are certain that someone is guilty, they too sometimes adjust their memories, statements, analyses and physical items. In a climate where military interrogators are so certain of their captives guilt that they feel free to torture their captives, other investigators will also adjust memories, statements, analyses and physical items. The main goal is no longer the determination of objective truth. Instead the main goal becomes the confirmation of the preconceived judgment.

Investigators can falsify evidence whether or not torture is used. And the remedy for this is the usual - compartmentalization coupled with random audits. It is difficult for two people engaged in an elaborate lie to keep their stories straight. No investigator can fully trust another one to collaborate with him in falsifying evidence.

The idea that inflicting torture increases someone's motivation for making up evidence is just spurious. Actually, devoting a lot of time to interrogate someone unsuccessfully probably also increases this motivation, since the lack of success shows up in the productivity statistics. Should we then ban lengthy interrogations? What about arrests that don't lead to convictions? Maybe we should ban arrests over a certain number - since a low conviction to arrest ratio shows that the investigators are clueless and are therefore more likely to make up evidence.

Remember - the personal stakes here are pretty low - investigators don't get executed for failing to uncover terrorist attacks before the fact. In most cases, they don't even get demoted, let alone criticized. There is no reason for them to make up evidence, and even when they do, no reason to believe that they can get away with it. But ultimately, the measure of the effectiveness of torture is quantifiable and has nothing to do with a successful conviction in a court of law. The ultimate measure has to do with arms caches blown up, terrorist leaders in custody, terrorist funding confiscated, improvised mines defused, et al.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-08 3:42:48 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-08 3:42:48 PM|| Front Page Top

04:12 diaspora every 79 years
00:15 Mike Sylwester
00:03 .com
23:57 .com
23:55 .com
23:48 nada
23:47 SR71
23:45 AJackson
23:41 .com
23:39 AJackson
23:39 trailing wife
23:37 Shipman
23:35 trailing wife
23:34 gromky
23:16 Pappy
23:15 Atomic Conspiracy
23:13 Dave D.
23:13 Silentbrick
23:02 .com
22:59 Dave D.
22:57 .com
22:52 SwissTex
22:50 2b
22:45 Barbara Skolaut