The "Torture" thread was closed recently, and since I liked reading about everyone's opinions:


Questions for Debate:

1.) When is torture an acceptable practice?

2.) Is torture more effective or is it more ineffective and why?

3.) Can a nation implement torture if it is believed a terrorist has information that could prevent an attack, save lives, etc.?

4a.) How can you justify the use torture?

4b.) How can you condemn the use of torture?

This is a multi-repeat thread, so I'll repeat myself yet again.

1.) When is torture an acceptable practice?
Never

2.) Is torture more effective or is it more ineffective and why?
I have stated in multiple related threads in this forum that torture is operationally ineffective. There have certainly been some exceptions, but as a general rule, it holds.

This is also true for certain methods that aren't quite the brutal physical torture that most people associate with the term. For example, "white noise" is merely disorienting to the subject - until it passes a certain threshold, beyond which is causes significant pain. Stress positions, when applied for extended periods, do cause significant pain - thus both methods equate to torture in that a source will eventually say anything to stop the noise or get out of the position.

Those methods, though common, have never been "proven" to work - in the sense of consistently resulting in reliable and verifiable intelligence information. Neither does sleep deprivation - which also merely disorients the subject (however, properly applied sleep disruption may be a useful part of cognitive manipulation in an effective interrogation). Any individual will almost always 'fess up to something under a combination of sleep deprivation, sensory abuse and prolonged stress positions. But it generally is not worthwhile intel. That brings us to that spectrum of detainess who vary in degrees from untrained to trained in methods of counterinterrogation.

In simplest terms, a source untrained in counter-interrogation techniques will say whatever you want when you reach a certain threshold - physical, psychological, or a combination. Not a reliable source. A source trained in counter-interrogation techniques (to include those who refuse to spout so much as a monosyllable under normal questioning methods) will state what he wants to when a believable threshold is reached. Disinformation or misdirection delivered in a believable manner, under significant duress is far more dangerous to us when integrated into current ops than than the information from the untrained source simply spitting out what you want to hear.

3.) Can a nation implement torture if it is believed a terrorist has information that could prevent an attack, save lives, etc.?
Representatives of any nation certainly can use torture. The question is "Should they use torture?" The answer is no.

I've worked in various aspects of this field for about two decades. But for obvious reasons, I'm not going to go into what does constitute effective interrogation methods. I've mentioned cognitive manipulation, which is about as apt a lable for the methodology as you'll find. Effective interrogation supporting counterterrorism is far more complex and difficult than everyday law enforcement interrogation or military PW interrogation in a conventional conflict. That is why you see this slippage into questionable methods - it is an admission of failure by the interrogator, and a clear indicator of a leadership failure by his superiors, in both supervision and training.

To repeat myself yet again, torture does absolutely nothing to facilitate the effective collection of intelligence information in support of the counterterrorism effort. In the long-term, it is counterproductive.

Without going into specifics, I'll just say that it takes a while to train an effective interrogator. Graduation from one of the law enforcement or military courses available, or attending the Reid or any other contract courses on the market, does not produce an effective interrogator right off the bat. There is no substitute for experience - getting live feedback from human sources tempered with professional mentoring. Manipulative human communications takes time to refine to the point where an individual can deal effectively with the hard cases. Many people, no matter how much training they receive, or how hard they try, will never become effective interrogators. Its not something that is in everyone's nature to apply effectively. Torture, on the other hand, is easy. In this context, torture is an act of desperation and an admission of failure on the part of the interrogator. Besides being a crime, that is....

4a.) How can you justify the use torture?
You cannot justify the use of torture. Unprofessional methods used out of haste, frustration, expediency, a desire for revenge - whatever excuse label you care to put on it - has already caused us significant damage at the strategic and operational levels.

4b.) How can you condemn the use of torture?
How can you not condemn torture?

I cannot see any good reason for the use of torture unless one was certain that no other means of interrogation would work. Even then many lives and no other alternative would have to be the reason for even considering it.



As for effectiveness, it cannot be more effective, and may be less effective unless statements can be correlated with others. That said I believe that there are numerous interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation and psychological stress that can and should be used if the lives of Americans are at stake. We are certainly under no obligation to make enemy combatants “comfortable”.

It is easy to condemn the routine use of torture. It puts us at the same level as our enemies and goes against our principles as a nation.

Well, I don't have too much to contribute since Mustang summed up nicely my thoughts on the matter.

1.) When is torture an acceptable practice?
2.) Is torture more effective or is it more ineffective and why?

It's never acceptable. Not only does it violate human rights and the code of military justice, but it is also ineffective. There have been numerous posts on AD documenting the ineffectiveness of torture. It doesn't work.

3.) Can a nation implement torture if it is believed a terrorist has information that could prevent an attack, save lives, etc.?
4a.) How can you justify the use torture?
4b.) How can you condemn the use of torture?

There was a common refrain during the time of the Inquisition: What is a few years of pain compared to an eternity in Damnation? If you recall, Christians believed (and some still do) that non-Christians would go to hell if they didn't convert. Thus, all sorts of terrible punishments were exacted to "help" them convert.

However, I do have a modest proposal. I would be willing to consider allowing torture if and only if the torturers have been through torture themselves. Thus, any agent of US interrogation who wishes to use torture must undergo the same torture they wish to employ. Perhaps, they could submit themselves to be incarcerated in a less than reputable country where torture is used?

Can one of you please define the word "torture"?

And, yes, he/she/they may tell us what we want to hear, which will be a good thing if our prior intelligence is good and we are "torturing" someone who knows just what we want to hear. One otherwise wonders, if "torture" does not work, why our friends in the military and in intelligence have this thing concerning the distribution of information on a "need to know" basis.

The standard canard that "torture" does not work is otherwise pure rubbish [http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/NKHR_new/inter_conf/Elizabeth_Batha.html]:

"Sleep deprivation is a common tactic, which both victims and torturers have commented is especially effective in interrogation."

And from our friends down under [as it were][http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/16/1071336940536.html]:

""People are very predictable and very breakable," said Edward Turzanski, a terrorism analyst and teacher of intelligence and national security at Philadelphia's La Salle University.
***
"Being able to know the difference between night and day, being in a quiet place, eating food that's edible, not being cold," are things any human being will feel a tremendous pressure to regain when deprived, he said.

US authorities will probably try a number of techniques, experts say, since different individuals respond better to some than others. Sleep deprivation tends to be very effective, said La Salle's Turzanski."

And as someone else so aptly put the matter:

"A couple of points that should be obvious, but apparently aren't:

1) Yes, torture might cause a prisoner to "say anything" to stop the torture. But hostile prisoners already have lots of reasons to "say anything"--for example, desire to mislead the enemy, inflate one's perceived importance, or hide knowledge of important information. The problem of prisoners lying to interrogators is pretty much independent of whether they are tortured, mistreated, or pampered. Their stories have to be checked in any case, and there are lots of familiar techniques for doing so. If anything, the possibility of future torture if caught lying increases a prisoner's incentive to tell the truth...."

So, Mustang, we have the same problem even without the torture. The fact that the infliction of "stress and duress" fools some/us into thinking that the misinformation is legitimate is an indication of our stupidity, and not the ineffectiveness of torture. And maybe our friends ought to keep that in mind when, as you noted, we incorporate some of the "intelligence" into our strategic and tactical planning.

Questions for Debate:

1.) When is torture an acceptable practice?

Torture should never be accepted as a practice.

2.) Is torture more effective or is it more ineffective and why?

I believe it to be ineffective because it breeds hate, often the information gathered as a result of torture is unreliable.

3.) Can a nation implement torture if it is believed a terrorist has information that could prevent an attack, save lives, etc.?

No, the laws of our nation call for trial by jury, or tribunals in the case of terrorists, that should be the method for prosecuting terrorists.

4a.) How can you justify the use torture?

I believe it is how you play the game, not the outcome that matters. If you cheat (or torture in this case) the victory was ill-gotten, just like an athlete that uses steriods, his victory should be erased.

4b.) How can you condemn the use of torture?

KhT, I recall you defending the use of torture on another thread as well.

...as with so many other "experts", I wonder how many sources Turzanski has actually interrogated...

Like I said, I've worked in the field for around two decades, working with my peers from the US and foreign partners in a wide variety of situations over the years. I strongly hold to my statements.


The linked statement from Ms. Batha does nothing to support the premise that "torture is effective". Her statement refers to the effectiveness of obtaining forced confessions to prejudged offenses. Methods typical throughout the USSR and Warsaw Pact in their day - but the North Koreans do manage to put their own brutal twist on the methodology.

As I already stated, "sleep deprivation" is merely disorienting; it becomes easy to "lead" the source when he reaches a certain point - different for each individual. Pretty reliable when synched with other coercive methods for getting a source to incriminate themselves - not reliable at all for obtaining verifiable intelligence information.

No one is ever so stupid as to assume that a hostile source - especially an ideologically driven terrorist or insurgent - will be open and truthful on the direct approach. Effective interrogation methods - I've used the descriptive term cognitive manipulation - are also effective in determining the general validity of the source's statements. With good intel support to interrogation, so are much simpler questioning techniques. Everything rides on the skill of the interrogator, the quality of the intel support, and the degree of planning and prep put into the session. As I've repeatedly stated, torture is an admission of failure on the part of the interrogator, and an indicator of a serious leadership failure of those who are supposed to be supervising him.

The writer of that short paragraph understands little about interrogation. Once again, torturing a source - then threatening him with torture again as a method of information verification - is just as ineffective as it is wrong. Unless, of course, you are simply a North Korean torturer only interested in gaining of a confession to a crime you've already informed the prisoner that they've committed....

Mustang:

As I asked, please provide your definition of "torture." Let's see if we can agree on a definition first, to avoid speaking past each other [as it were].

But until then, you are partly correct. I have never denied and so have never said that the skill [and stamina] of the interrogator is a rather crucial item in our equation. On the other side, as I am sure you will acknowledge, the skill of the one being interrogated is also rather crucial. With that in mind, you said that torture won't be required if all else falls into place [my reading of what you said, if I am wrong in that regard, then please correct me]. I disagree with that premise, since some undergoing interrogation are what the late Dave Hackworth and I would call "hardcore" and so would sooner die than betray the cause [as it were]. And if they've not only that attitude, but have undergone proper counter-interrogation "education", your job becomes rather difficult. Do you remember someone by the name of Bobby Sands? I would suggest that you read his, The Skylark Singing Her Lonely Song [a compendium of his prison experience[s]], and so come to know the mental state of one who will tell them nothing and undergo voluntary starvation unto death in order to serve the cause. If Bobby knows something we don't, do you really think that all our "games" are going to get him to tell us what we need/want to know? Bobby understood that one keeps to the script and never deviates from it, and so our [and the Brits] interrogation will not lead him into unknowingly giving us valuable intelligence under the guise of him believing that he is actually serving the cause [kind of like when lawyer me tells his client, keep to the script and never let your mind wander from it, 'cause when you do, someone else is going to take you in a direction that you truly don't want to go, and what you thought was to your good will turn out to be your suicide]. So either adhere to the script, or tell them nothing [with the telling them nothing being an obvious self-preservation mechanism re one's mind wandering where it ought not to go, or should I say, don't succumb to the temptation to talk, as the persons you are conversing with do not have your best interest at heart but are only bent on your destruction (a handy thought to have about)].

And in addition to the The Skylark Singing Her Lonely Song, I would ask that you read either the PIRA's "Green Book" or such excerpts as appear in Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA: A History. Here's a link to Tim Pat:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/...an/coogan93.htm

As you can see, much time is spent "indoctrinating" the recruit in "history". As I am sure you know, such is not so that little Patrick can score an A on his Irish history test, but so that little Patrick has rather completely and wholly internalized [as it were] the notion that his cause is firmly grounded in both history and morality [and that he will be betraying the same, in a most vile and despicable manner, should he not adhere to expectations]. And as the intro part of that chapter makes plain, the reason why that is important:

"As we have seen (on pages 578-81) the I.R.A. prepared a structural plan based on the cell system which became public when Seamus Twomey was captured in 1977. The report found on him isolated the I.R.A.'s central problem as follows.

The three-day and seven-day detention orders are breaking volunteers and it is the Republican Army's fault for not indoctrinating volunteers with the psychological strength to resist interrogation."

Please do not take this the wrong way [as it were], but is any success on your part owing to your successful interrogation methods, or instead to the failure of some others in not indoctrinating volunteers with the psychological strength to resist interrogation? The PIRA seems to have its answer to that question.

And recall what I posted here in some other thread about some viewing the homicide/suicide bombing as an act of religious devotion/worship. Just what we need, martyrs. Maybe that's not something an atheist or agnostic can understand, but as one who has a faith, let me simply say that while notions of nationalism and patriotism are one thing, notions of homicide/suicide bombing and tell them nothing as an act of religious devotion/worship is a whole other matter. And it probably explains many of those that we've done to death via the use of what you, me, and some others would call "torture" and/or "cruel and unusual treatment." I, for one, am under no illusions, and like what the late Admiral Chester Nimitz said in relation to the Japanese following Pearl Harbor, we must not again underestimate al-Qaeda, as well as all those others who wish to do us evil/harm. And my guess is that your own experience probably otherwise operates to validate my point in this regard.

And notice what I never said. I never said that we start off with the rack and the hot pincers. We reserve that for the rather extreme circumstance, and then we go to confession and confess our sin [and by way of excuse and/or mitigation and/or mere acknowledgment of the existing reality, simply admit that in certain circumstances, we are not strong enough to refrain from the same when the lives of others are hanging in the balance]. There is otherwise no need to remind me of the morality or immorality of it all, since as a lawyer, I have spent the better part of the last decade trying to get judges, lawyers, and my clients to understand, why the law. I usually refer to Clancy's Patriot Games, wherein Dan Murray says to James Owens: Sometimes we're too damn civilized, to which James Owens responds: The alternative, Dan, is to become like them. And with that there's also Picard's words in Pen Pals, to the effect that not the least of the reasons for the prime directive is the reason that it serves to protect us from ourselves. And so the law against torture is not to protect Osama, but as Sgt. Highland thought, to protect him and I from taking that small step back to the rack and the hot pincers [and accompanying mental state]. And if that doesn't work, there's always Uri Dan's contribution to the work, 90 Minutes At Entebbe, to wit, that nobody really knew how to handle the so-called War of Attrition, since in fighting such terrorism there is always the danger of losing your own sense of right and wrong. But to make that proverbial long story short, we have the law because of me, i.e., there is a law against homicide on the books because I am a murderer [and so I also needed to be told, You shall not murder...and some other things as well].

Now, on to Ms. Batha. You said that her remarks do not support my claim. May I simply suggest that you are in error? You might very well be correct if we were looking at things through the eyes of the North Korean regime. But Ms. Batha said that the victims acknowledged its effectiveness. I, for one, don't think that such means that they meant to say that their coerced confession was successful in convicting them in a show trial [as it were], which appears to me to be your premise. I think instead that our victims meant that they had resolved to not cooperate and be coerced, but ended up spilling the proverbial beans or otherwise found themselves rather willing to acknowledge and/or execute a fabricated statement of confession. The latter is the error that results from torture, as you and some others have correctly reported, while the former is an example of torture being effective. But either way, and to make the single point, their will to resist was broken, and that, and not necessarily the truth of the matter, is the purpose of "torture". And as we otherwise both agree, torture or no, we still need to check on the veracity of those things disclosed, and never mind if such occurred during the "Bell Telephone hour" or over an ice cream sundae and/or cookies and milk. And that's where the mistake is made. Torture is not designed or intended to get the truth, per se, rather, as related, it's designed to break the will. And since it bears repeating, torture or no, some have reason to lie and will have no qualm in doing so, so, torture or no, the veracity of the disclosure[s] will always have to be checked.

And you mentioned "lead[ing]" the subject of the interrogation. But while that is one thing that we might very well want to do [lawyers do it on cross-examination via so-called "leading questions."], there is another objective, at least in some instances. Isolation. Dependence. Impotence. Control. Four words of critical import to the human spirit [assuming that one believes such to exist]. I do not picture sleep deprivation as necessarily "leading" anyone to anything, I picture sleep deprivation as also being designed to operate by destroying [not "disorienting"] the interrogated's will to resist [as I said above, and referring back to the language used by the PIRA in its "Green Book"]. And since sleep, a good night's worth, is a human necessity, well, I don't necessarily need to disorient, as I would be just as successful, if not more so, if I have him begging me to tell him what it will take in order for him to be able to get some sleep. When that thought is genuinely his, then he is mine, as I am in control of his enjoyment of that basic human necessity that we call sleep and he "knows" it. And if you don't believe, please read the quote from Biko below, on my sig. line. [as, presumably, you yourself recognize by use of "cognitive manipulation"]

I have otherwise heard that we have had people in custody, throughout our history, wherein the circumstance prior for the interrogated was such that all it took to crush the will to resist was a simple act of human kindness [a decent meal, a warm bed, etc.]. So don't think that we won't be exceptionally kind if that's what the matter calls for. And here's the false morality that I object to, to wit, if properly understood, if the value we are trying to protect is the individual's living according to his own "free will and rational intellect" [to use the legal phrase], then there is zero moral and legal distinction between the sleep deprivation and my rather insidiously taking advantage of someone's prior abject condition by way of offering and showing kindness for purposes of obtaining a "confession."

May I ask a question? What do you mean by "verifiable intelligence." I mean, there's all sorts of "intelligence." And to further relate my question to the above, the other side of the coin is, as I stated, the "need to know." As the "Green Book" makes clear, it isn't just because we might be tortured that we aren't told and so don't know, it's also because we might get drunk and toss discretion to the wind, or, for fans of the West Wing, maybe we tell our lover things she has no business knowing [both examples of that old adage, loose lips sink ships]. But as I am sure you can appreciate, as a counter-intelligence technique, we not only have the "need to know" as a matter of just who gets told, but WHEN they get told as well. So as concerns "verifiable intelligence," we get less of the kind that will allow us to foil particular and specific insurgent operations as the enemy learns to understand that they should not only be restricting the flow of info within their organization, but also with respect to the timing of that spread of info as well. I mean, if it takes your "cognitive manipulation" a week to work, but the insurgents have designed their particular and specific operations such that the "usual suspects" won't be provided the operational details/plan until three days prior, then your "cognitive manipulation" will not be so successful.

And as I said, torture is neither for every person nor for every circumstance. By way of example, I would hope that one of things that we take to be important is the matter of knowing what makes our enemy tick [as it were]. Presumably, that does not need to [nor can it] be accomplished via the infliction of "torture." Time for the milk and cookies, and the question, please tell me about your movement, what are you trying to accomplish?

Now, a question. Joe McCarthy. Not so pleasant a man, but he was right, to a certain extent. There were spies, one of whom was Kim Philby. So posit that we've uncovered Kim Philby, and we know from other info/sources that Kim is not the only agent/spy working for the British government and passing on info to our enemy/enemies. We and the Brits make up the largest part of the UN forces in Korea. And we have battles taking place and people dying every day. And we know, as I said, that we don't just have Kim, but some others as well. Tell me, if Kim truly doesn't want to give up his two buddies, what is your "cognitive manipulation" going to accomplish? Assuming of course, that Kim is "hardcore" and will not lose faith in his cause. You can fool and trick [as it were] people into mistakenly divulging information that they don't want to divulge, but that doesn't work so well with respect to learning the names of people. And given Kim's higher education and his dedication to the cause, I suspect that he won't say anything at all that would even remotely begin to implicate the two other spies [I would expect that if he talked at all, that it would be to lead us, yes, as you now, they can "lead" as well, so he'll be leading us in another direction [the misinformation related in my prior post].

So what do we do with Kim? How many soldiers [UN, NK, Chinese] will have to die because we have qualms or are otherwise squeamish about torturing Kim in order to find out the identify of the two other people who are passing on some rather valuable info to our enemy/enemies?

And back to false morality. We didn't torture Kim, nor his associates. But the CIA and Hans Tofte took out that ship carrying medical personnel and supplies to the Chinese/North Koreans. And by took out, I mean to say that Hans worked with his old acquaintance, General Chang, to conduct what can only be called an act of piracy on the high seas. So, with CIA personnel safely tucked away below deck, some "pirates" stopped and boarded this ship in what was and is called Operation TP Stole. The "pirates" removed the medical supplies and personnel from the ship and then let the ship sail on its merry way. Hans says that the medical supplies were given to the Nationalist Chinese as recompense for their labor and expense, and does not otherwise speculate on the fate of the medical personnel, who have never otherwise been seen or heard from again. But according to most, including Hans, Operation TP Stole delayed the planned Chinese offensive until after General Matthew Ridgway had had time to reorganize the 8th Army [and other UN forces], and most importantly, its artillery, and so when the Chinese did later commence their offensive, they were, quite simply, blown to bits by UN/US artillery. And now to ask the question, was Operation TP Stole justified?

And for one more example, submarine and anti-submarine warfare. As you presumably know, a submarine needs to be undetected to not only do its job, but to survive. So, what does Captain You do when faced with the possibility of the survival of persons who will most assuredly give your position away? We executed the German U-boat captain after the war for his doing so, but did not do so to our own sub commander who did the same [he was commended and publicly honored]. And the aforementioned Admiral Nimitz most likely saved the life of Admiral Karl Donitz, by informing the appropriate authority that the American Navy had also operated on the same principle, espoused rather soon after Pearl Harbor: Execute unrestricted submarine and air warfare against Japan. Need I say that such order would be, today, in violation of several provisions of applicable Geneva conventions? At the time, it violated the 1930 agreement that Japan, Britain, and the United States would each ensure that its submarines would not sink merchant vessels without having first placed passengers and crew in a place of safety. And at that time, Japan had not broken that 1930 agreement.

And re the unrestricted air warfare, in 1938, the State Dept. reported that air bombardment of civilians was "in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of humane conduct which have been developed as an essential part of modern civilization." And Secretary of State Cordell Hull had himself said that incendiary raids "inevitably and ruthlessly jeopardize non-military persons and property." But that didn't stop General Curtis LeMay from deciding to adopt the strategy of incendiary, night raids against Japanese cities and other targets.

Now, for the question and answer bearing on false morality, what won the war against the Empire of Japan? Answer: Our fathers and grandfathers did their duty and execute[d] unrestricted submarine and air warfare against Japan, and so it was that our forefathers and the submarine and the plane conquered the Empire of Japan and won victory in the Pacific. Somehow, I don't think that many here who report that torture is never justified understand that much of their rationale for saying such also serves to condemn the "Greatest Generation" and its victory over fascist, totalitarianism.

And to further relate this part to torture, as someone not so fond of torture wrote [http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_torture_ft_051504.htm]:

"To take the measure of Abu Ghraib, we need to widen out our reflections, think about the moral nihilism of torture and why - this is the most painful question - torture remains a temptation, even a supposed necessity, in a war on terror."

Yeah, a painful question, as unrestricted submarine and air warfare remains a temptation, even a supposed necessity, in a war on terror.

And the author might try to reconcile the order to execute unrestricted submarine and air warfare against Japan with his comments here:

"Liberal democracy stands against torture because it stands against any unlimited use of public authority against human beings, and torture is the most unlimited, the most unbridled form of power that one person can exercise against another."

That last part is mere hyperbole, but when it comes to the UNLIMITED use of public authority against human beings, again, the order was, Execute UNRESTRICTED submarine and air warfare against Japan [remembering, of course, that my dictionary defines "restrict" as "to keep or confine within limits"]. Maybe we should otherwise ask our author to jump into H.G. Wells' time machine, and go back in time to WWII in the Pacific. Let him see how much fun it is to stop, board, and then escort to a place of safety the crew of the Nissan Maru.

And for more on false morality:

"But the cases are not the same. A liberal society that would not defend itself by force of arms might perish, while a liberal society that refused to torture is less likely to jeopardise its collective survival. Besides, there is a moral difference between killing a fellow combatant, in conformity to the laws of war, and torturing a person. The first takes a life; the second abuses one. It seems more legitimate to ask a citizen to defend a state by force of arms and, if necessary, to kill in self-defence or to secure a military objective, than it does to ask him to inflict degrading pain face to face. On this reading of a democratic moral identity, it may be legitimate to kill in self-defence, but not to engage in cruelty."

Ask him to inflict degrading pain face to face? You mean like our German Wehrmacht friend who killed our Jewish American US Army friend by stabbing him in the chest with a knife in the film Saving Private Ryan? Remembering, of course, that death by intentional killing is the ultimate degradation, all attempts to substitute Newspeak for English to the contrary. And never mind that the comparison itself fails because other than Grenada, I cannot recall a US war [as it were] wherein the civilian casualties did not exceed that of the nominal combatants.

And from this same author, the point that I was trying to make, and why I asked you to define the word "torture":

"The interrogation methods of which the Americans have been accused since 9/11 were, until the latest round of allegations this month, held to include nothing worse than sleep deprivation, permanent light or permanent darkness, disorienting noise and isolation. If this were true, if interrogation remained free of physical duress or cruelty, it would amount to coercion, rather than torture, and there might be a lesser evil justification for it."

So is it torture? Or coercion?

And back to the false morality:

"The problem with torture is not just that it gets out of control, not just that it becomes lawless. It inflicts irremediable harm on both the torturer and the prisoner."

Gets out of control? Doesn't that explain why some claim that as wars go on, the tendency is for the killing to become just that much more indiscriminate? And certainly, the death of the enemy is irremediable to him, and I'll let those who served state for themselves what the killing did to them [and by "the killing", I am referring to those they may have killed, and their comrades who were killed].

And please note the discussion by that author of how, even though it ruled against certain practices denominated "torture," the Israeli Supreme Court accepted that there were in fact certain instances wherein the information gained as a result of physical torture did indeed save lives.

And may I just say that I agree with most of this:

"...we must stress, first, that while conscientious people may disagree as to whether torture might be admissible in cases of necessity, all will agree that torture can never be justified as a general practice. The problem lies in identifying the justifying exceptions and defining what forms of duress stop short of absolute degradation of an interrogation subject."

And the author is entirely correct here:

"Any liberal democratic citizen who supports the torture of terrorist suspects in ticking-bomb cases must accept responsibility for the psychological damage done to victim and interrogator."

Which explains, among other things, my reference to confession and confessing above.

And back again to the false:

"The experience destroyed his trust: "Someone who has been tortured is never capable of being at home in the world again.""

And so with some of us who have witnessed the killing of other humans, even when done in "self-defense."

And for more of the same:

"Amery also insisted that torture should be viewed not in individual terms as the psychosexual aberration of particular torturers but as a key to the identity of the society responsible for it. He argued that torture was not an incidental feature of the Third Reich but the essence of its view of human beings."

So, we are Nazis [though I don't see any mobile gas vans, ovens, and crematoria]. And perhaps the author should ask those who served and fought why our flyboys didn't shoot down other pilots, but other planes [and so the view of the human wasn't changed, rather, the human was eliminated from the reality, and it does not get any more dehumanizing than that, and that's one of the horrors of war].

Lastly, what's wrong with failure? Is it a pride thing, or does one expect to succeed and/or be victorious on each and every occasion? And a case could be made that a failure to recognize failure is just that, a further failure. And as I've remarked re the "hardcore," is not possible to admit that his powers of resistance are more formidable than our powers of "cognitive manipulation", at least in some instances? And maybe the insistence, in all instances, on continued "cognitive manipulation," gets read as he fiddled while Rome burned.

I, for one, can only hope that some of us are willing to accept a certain amount or degree of failure, and plan accordingly. The Japanese almost never did, and when they did, it was rather late in the day [as it were], and so they wasted away some rather precious lives and resources when it would have been in their strategic and tactical interest to concede failure and plan accordingly. As an initial example, Guadalcanal, the "Island of Death" [the English transliteration of the name given by the Japanese soldiers who served there], was one such instance. Rabaul is another example [which witnessed the destruction of the last competent remnant of the Japanese Navy's air arm].

Sorry, one more. Again, what is "torture?" Some rabbis think [i.e., Rabbis For Human Rights]:

"The purpose of torture is to remove a person's pride, humiliate them, or make
their lives so painful that they say or do whatever the interrogator wants."

If that defines torture, then what about sleep deprivation? Didn't you say that the purpose was to "disorient?" Can't we do that without having any intent to injure or remove a person's pride, humiliate them, and make their life so painful that they say or do whatever the interrogator wants? How much pain, etc., is involved in sleep deprivation? And is there necessarily going be more removed pride and humiliation in the case of the sleep deprived detainee, as opposed to another detainee who was not sleep deprived [doesn't that depend on the particular mental makeup and/or outlook of the detainee]? And what about war itself? Isn't war torture by the above definition? As near as I can discern, the purpose of war is to effect the capitulation or surrender on the part of the conquered, to the demands and will of the conqueror [unless, of course, one plans on winning the war via the annihilation of the opposition]? And so, in war, we injure pride, humiliate our enemy, and otherwise try to make their lives so "painful" that they lose the will to resist and submit to our demands. So maybe war itself is torture, and while I don't want to excuse or justify the same as a general proposition, we might consider, as I related, the false morality of it all.

Here is a perfect recent example of why information gained from torture is unreliable.

(See this NYT Article).

Who knows, al Qaeda may have deliberately promoted the invasion of Iraq? It has certainly served their purposes!

Members of the Bush Administration are guilty of blatant redefinitions and apologies for torture but we should never forget that this "tool of American foreign policy" has been practices in the shadows since the Vietnam War. See this article from The Nation.

As much as some may wish me to, I am not going to discuss what are effective methods of interrogation, nor details of counterinterrogation. Be that in a stand-alone discussion, or in a form of comparative analysis. I've already gone into as much detail as I feel comfortable with on an open forum.

Sorry mods, I know this brief post doesn't really contribute to the debate - but I felt I needed to state this clearly.

Ted:

Rule No. 3: Correlation is not causation.

What happens if the man had said the same thing without any "torture?" Would we now be saying that maybe we should have tortured him instead? Only the man in question knows whether it was the torture, and not some other cause, that prompted him to say what he did.

And the NYT article says that some claim that some of what he said was true [or "accurate"]. If so, do we give the torture credit for that? Mustang probably thinks that I'm some neo-Nazi lunatic, but I'm not advocating that we torture all and torture first. I otherwise don't like the idea of physical torture at all [and by that I mean, the purposeful infliction of physical pain], and think that it should never be used, not even in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario. Maybe it's just me, and not to denigrate the integrity and well-being of one's mind, but having been physically abused and bearing the scars of the same, I, for one, can say that it is easier for one to get over the violation of person when one does not have to look at the physical reminder of the violation each and every time that one looks in a mirror [or some other sufficiently reflecting surface [as it were]].

Now, here is the part that I find troubling:

"Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials. He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004,..."

Why no recantation sooner, why only AFTER the war had started? And two months short of a year at that? I'm not saying that we all would have known such if he had recanted in February of 2003, but he could have done so, I mean, he could have said, in Feb. of 2003, hey, guys, not that I love you or anything, since I want to see the corpses of kufr Crusader you rotting in the sun, but I care about that part of the ummah in Iraq, so I must tell you that the Egyptians tortured me and as a result I said.....and so I don't want this war to start based on a fabrication made by me to end the torture. Frankly, I read this the opposite way. I read this as the man knows that torture is effective in some instances [i.e., he has no resistance and knows what we want to know, and so will sing like that proverbial canary], and so if he says that it was all a lie, we will all stop the practice, and he and his buddies won't have to worry any more about cracking under the pain and/or stress.

And Carl Levin's remarks also serve to undercut the claim that this was all the fault of torture:

"Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers."

I won't speak for Carl, but if I was talking about a torture-induced disclosure, I would not be referring to the same as INTENTIONALLY misleading the debriefers, since the purpose of the torture is to override his rational intellect and free will, at least as it then exists.

And by the way, one thing that Mustang has not said, or at least I don't remember him saying it, to wit, one of the downsides to torture is our thinking that it works. And that I freely admit is a danger, since once we make that assumption and apply it unquestioningly in each and every instance, then our man Libi takes it as read, and he discloses misleading information knowing that we will believe the same because we think that torture made him tell the truth. That is why, as I said prior, torture or no, we must always check on the veracity of every thing said or otherwise disclosed. And because people do say things to avoid pain, in cases of torture, we ALWAYS take that into account, and so ought to be looking for just that much more verification, whenever and wherever possible.

Edited to add:

And, Ted, if some are right, and some of what he did say was true, it is possible that he used the torture and the correct info to fool us into believing the untrue part, i.e., he knows or suspects that some will think that torture made him tell the truth, and since he also knows or suspects that some others of us will be skeptical, he supplies some info, probably not exactly easy to verify, which makes it more believable that it was the torture and not some calculated deception on his part that caused the disclosure[s].

That being said, there is the same dilemma even in the absence of torture, which is to say that I would expect these guys to tell us nothing but name, rank and serial number, so the more freely other disclosures are made, the more skeptical I would be when it came to veracity. And so, I would assume that some of your smarter detainees are going to see things that same way, and they accordingly ought to be counted on to take some acts, measures, what have you, in order to convince me that they aren't just giving me "free" but not so valuable info in order to set me up for the big fall.

Mustang is otherwise correct, we need to be as intelligent, well-informed, and prepared as we can possibly be.

1.) When is torture an acceptable practice?

Ticking time-bomb situations, or in the case of the capture of high level operatives. Taking the knife to a low level thug accomplishes nothing, but taking it to a ring leader can net impressive results.

Lives of innocents > hands, feet, life of a terrorist

2.) Is torture more effective or is it more ineffective and why?

Nine times out of ten the mere threat of torture is enough to open the floodgates. The fact is the majority of the enemies of the west have no counter-interrogation training. Ten minutes of wailing on the soles of his or her feet and the person tells you everything they know.

These guys aren't like the KGB of yesteryears, whom you couldn't break; these are just untrained yahoos. It's as hard to break them, as it would be to break a random American you took off the street.

And on the topic of inaccurate information, try making up lies while someone is burning or striking you.

3.) Can a nation implement torture if it is believed a terrorist has information that could prevent an attack, save lives, etc.?

I value the lives of innocents over terrorists. The minute you deliberately attack civilians, you surrender your humanity.

4a.) How can you justify the use torture?

When people's lives in the balance, the end justifies the means. While NYC is disappearing under a mushroom cloud, the CIA operatives aren't going to look at each other and go, "hey, at least we didn't rough the guy up, moral victory for us!", I'd expect that they'd still be in the basement doing whatever it is they do down there.

I would say 1 and 4a are basically the same, and 4b is the converse of 4a, so I'll answer them together.

If I "justify" something, it is "acceptable", as the words you used were. This is like a lot of LD resolutions, and everyone is trying to get justice, morality, etc.

This debate is about ends v. means, and will always be. You can't possibly weigh ends over means ALL the time (i.e. teleology) and you can't possibly weigh means over ends ALL the time (i.e. deontology).

Personally, I am rather ends-based, but I wouldn't advocate killing 1 million people to achieve peace or end hunger, unless those 1 million did something to warrant killing them (if they were all serial murderers and genociders, I would think that killing them would justify the end of peace).

Relating to torture: Torture must be used in this way. It must fulfill all of the following rules.

Rule 1: If it is used for a specified purpose, not just done to anyone we choose, can it only be justified. It may only be used on a limited few, where torture is the only option to get that end (assuming the end is good). That is the main point, and if it doesn't fulfill this, then it can't be justified.

Rule 2: The end must outweigh the harms of the mean. If 100 million are saved based on one person's torture, then (hopefully) everyone will reconcile to themselves that the torturing was just. If the torture achieves a better end than NOT torturing, it outweighs there. This is the same as self-defense. Slippery slope arguments SHOULDN'T be used in torture debate, because the conclusion is usually absurd: If we use torture on Osama Bin Laden to find his connections and root out all terrorists, that will allow the government to torture it's own citizens based on tacit consent, violating justice. This isn't valid because you can't link Osama to US citizens. The things he has done/doing are incomparable to those of the worst serial murderer in the US.

Rule 3: The end must benefit US citizens, not just the government. If the government tortures someone to find out something that WON'T benefit anyone other than itself (military technology, etc. unless that technology would be used on US citizens), then that torturing is immediately unjust because then the government is nearing tyranny and not fulfilling it's obligation.

Rule 4: Somewhat relating to Rule 1, the US government can only torture if the person captured still can have negative implications. This only happens with terrorism. A serial killer can't be tortured justly (unless he runs a gang of killers) because he/she is in prison, not allowing for more harm. Osama's implications (a huge terrorist connection), still allows for people to die, so torturing him to find out about that connection is just.

Rule 5: Torturing must achieve ends that not torturing couldn't get, get the same/better ends faster than not torturing could get (if the time for the ends was worrisome), and/or have a better chance of achieving the same/better ends than not torturing. Regarding the first: the gained ends should be greater than the extra harm caused by torturing (if torturing 20 people would cause 20 more people to live, I would say it outweighs, but if torturing 20 people causes 1 more person to live, I don't think it outweighs). The first is probably the most open point on these rules. Regarding the second: this would only be applied if a terrorist attack was happening in a day, and torturing would achieve it in 10 minutes, where not torturing would get it in a week, then it outweighs. Regarding the third: if the government used torture to insure the end, rather than getting the end 50% of the time, it would outweigh. This one is somewhat dependant on the ends achieved, so it is like the first.

I think that these rules also answer the 3rd question.

Regarding question 2: I don't have any proof for either side, and I've never seen torture used or heard of it used by America, and I've never heard of any benefit being achieved from it. But this argument against it can't be weighed because Iraq was torturing innocent people, where if torture is justly used by the US it would only be for people we're sure are terrorists (i.e. Osama).

I personally don't advocate torture in every terrorist situation, but I think that if torturing fulfilled all 5 rules, then I believe it couldn't be logically condemned.

I think torture is morally unacceptable in all cases. One can conjure up a few "ticking tlmebomb" scenarios where the alternative could be debated; however, I reject all this hair splitting discussion about when, how, when, and why torture can be justified. We need to confront the simple fact that our government has opened the doors to torture and prisoner mistreatment that is clearly unacceptable. Not only have the results of torture induced testimony often invalid (as I indicated in my last post) but in many cases, innocent people have been tortured. Here is a Guardian Article describing another likely case of torturing the innocent.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of such victims of capricious state power and then resolve to do everything possible to end the role our government is playing in these human tragedies.

I think there is another aspect regarding U.S. illegal detainment and the use of torture against detainees.

Besides the fact that the U.S. is the worlds leading superpower, it is also a free and democratic country. Breach of international laws by dictators for example is morally wrong and horrible, but at least it has been done in the name of only a few persons, namely the dictator and all his friends/relatives in power. (just look at Saddam). But it is a whole different ball-game when a democratically elected president of a free and democratic country starts to use illegal means to get information out of prisoners. Were the people in the first case (dictator) for a large part completely innocent of the misdeeds of their leader, the people in a democratic country are, because of the democratic nature of government, directly responsible for the misconducts of their leaders. In other words, what GWB and his fine "friends" are doing is, technically, in the name of all Americans! You have the democratic means to make these practises stop and change the U.S policies. (it is your president and they are your troops and intelligence agents)

My English is not good, it doesn't much matter.
I was so formerly tortured for "justifiable" reasons of a state which does not exist any more. (GRD)

I suffer from PTSD since and no day for 17 years takes place without that it is in me.
We cannot forget "that" and those who think otherwise are bastards:

If tomorrow the reasons were badly based or false, that you would have to say to allow to live again normally?

Freja, for what it's worth, you have my total sympathy. For many years I was a member of Amnesty International and wrote letters to political prisoners to help make their jailers aware that the world was watching and would bear witness to any torture or prisoner abuse. Now that my own government has created the conditions for such behavior by American troops and intelligence personnel and refused to fire or otherwise punish the high officials responsible, it has also drastically reduced the impact that world public opinion can exert on such despicable behavior by others.

Even when our government takes steps that appear to be in support of reducing torture, such as the take over of the torture chambers run by the Iraqi Interior Minister, we often find out that the motivation was not to stop torture but something else.

(See Gareth Porter Article).

I think everyone in America should watch the show "24". Although it is fiction, it shows the situations when Torture is indeed acceptable. If there was an A-Bomb or chemical weapon heading for a US city, you aren't going to "talk them down". You HAVE to use force anyway possible. I don't judge things I know nothing about, (irrational thought #1)so i cannot say how uch torture actually works, nobody but the government knows that because interrogation sessions are classified. BUT if torture has worked more times than it hasn't to stop terrorism, then I agree with using it. Now if innocent people get unjustly tortured, then they should get reperations, say 5000$. To answer your questions:

When is toture an acceptable practice?
Only under extreme conditions or under hasty condtions where many people could die.

Is torture effective or is it not?
I cannot answer this question, no one can without spreading propaganda. Interrogation sessions are classified, but I suppose they wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

Can a nation implement torture if it is believed a terrorist has information that could prevent an attack, save lives, etc.?
Yes, i believe that if there are more lives at stake than the people that they are torturing, i believe you can do anything you want to get the truth out.

How can you justify the use torture?
See the first question.

How can you condemn the use of torture?
When it is used against innocent lives.