I see this thread about Waterboarding has generated alot of discussion. To me it misses the point entirely. It doesn't matter how light the technique is, it is the act of physical coersion. Either you believe in it or you don't, either you think its right or wrong. Whether you are beating the crap out of someone or pouring water on their face, or hooking them up to electricity. Its all one idea. For me, I've never really believed in torture for one reason, if i'm getting the crap beat out of me, I'm going to tell you what you want to hear eventually. I'm sorry, call me soft. I would suspect most non military trained civilians are in the same boat i'm in. torture requires that the person being tortured has information you deem worth neccessary to torture over. I think over time we've learned that this practice doesn't work. from the spanish inquisition which was brought up in the waterboarding thread, to the salem witch trials. now obviously these example are a little different because one thing we know now is that the people who were tortured in those situations had nothing to say because of the questions being asked "are you a witch". but you did get answers of "yes, i'm a witch, or i've cooperated with the devil". I ask you torture supporters, if we know that the practice results in answers like that, does it work?
Also the question is about the reliability of the information 1. Do they know anything 2. If they tell you something. . .are they just telling you what they THINK you want to hear 3. If they tell you something. . . Are they just making up anything to get off the hook 4. If they tell you something. . . Are they telling the truth As a Torturer . . .. you figure that . . . They will tell you some lies. .. some truth . . but over time. . .it is easier to remember the truth than a lie you told while under intense pain. So You figure that they will eventually tell the truth and what ya hear over and over again is probably the truth Rocket River
torture requires that the person being tortured has information you deem worth neccessary to torture over. _____ The screening of a source ends when the screener is sure that he can make an accurate assessment of the source's potential cooperation and pertinent knowledge. At this time, the source is returned to the control of the guards, and the screener records his assessment on the screening report form. The assessment is recorded by means of a screening code. The screening code is a number-letter designation which reflects the level of cooperation to be expected from the source and the level of knowledgeability the source may possess. The number "1" represents a source who responds to direct questions. The number " 2" represents a source who responds hesitantly to questioning. The number "3" represents a source who does not respond to questioning. The letter "A" represents a source who is very likely to possess information pertinent to the supported commander's PIR. The letter "B" represents a source who might have information pertinent to the supported commander's IR. The letter "C" represents a source who does not appear to have pertinent information. Those sources who have been assigned to the same category may be interrogated in any order deemed appropriate by the senior interrogator. Category lA sources should normally be the first to be interrogated. Category 113 sources are next, followed by those assigned to categories 2A, 1C, 2B, 3A, 2C, and 313. Category 3C sources are normally interrogated last. This order of priorities ensures the highest probability of obtaining the greatest amount of pertinent information within the time available for interrogations. Screening codes may change with the echelon. The higher the echelon, the more time is available to conduct an approach. The following illustration depicts the order in which sources will be interrogated.
If I was an American Soldier, operative\agent assigned to protect the lives of American Citizens, where should the line be drawn? If I had a suspected terrorist in custody and asked him if he knew of any plots and he said no. Should I just call it a day and arrest him, leaving him in the hands of the justice system of the US or wherever he came from? Or should I do everything in my power to find out what that suspected terrorist knows even if he doesn't know anything? The information that led to the death Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was attained from a suspect whose interrogators tricked him, rather then totrure him. So there are alternatives to extract information from suspects that aren't forthcoming. But the conditions for deception won't always be there. I can see why many people are against torture, not just because its morally wrong, but they deem it ineffective. But using the spanish inquisition and salem witch trials has to be one of the worst arguements against interrogation\torture today. I just don't see how you can compare what a bunch of uneducated (by todays standards) religous zealots did centruies ago to the torturing of suspected terrorist, to extract information that could possible save the lives of maybe hundreds of innocent people. As Rocket River already stated its up to the interrogator to decide if someone is being truthful or not under torture. Bottom line is that interrogation is more of an art then science, you can't simply say torture doesn't work and just remove it from the tools we use to fight terrrorism today. Torture is inherently bad and will lower Americas standing and reputation in the world. But the question everyone should be asking is how far they are willing to go to fight an enemy whose goal is to kill as many americans as possible.
Here is the link to the chart and description from the Army field manual INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION FM 34-52 link
I don't know much about torture other than what I've seen on '24'. But in many cases wouldn't it be to the torturee's benefit not to divulge any info simply in order to remain alive? I mean after spilling the beans the torturer may not have any further use for the torturee anymore and would just decide to kill him off anyways. So in such cases the torturee would actually have incentive to just keep the torturing prolong on 'n on...
"I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not '24' and Jack Bauer." <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GbQLuZ28EEM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GbQLuZ28EEM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
brigadier generals and the dean of west point have come out and said 24 is harmful to american troops. the military has actually met w/ the producers and asked them to tone it down. it is the consensus of experts in the field of interrogation that torture doesnt work and is counter-productive. the army field manual is pretty explicit in this regard as well. and the republican congress is the one who passed the 1996 war crimes act. we know that the bush administration changed the definition of torture to only be things that result in organ failure or death. we also have bushs attorney, john yoo, arguing that there is no law that prevents the president from sexually torturing children. when your government is going around claiming this kind of authority they are no longer legitimate, imo.
The problem is though you are looking at using torture as a general interrogation technique which has been shown not to work. I don't think I could totally rule out torture if their was enough corroborating information and the stakes were immediate and great but in general I think torture is a bad idea.
If by inflicting excruciating pain or fear intended to make someone believe they are going to die or cause them to lose consciousness then yes, of course it works.
Actually, this brings up a really good point. It would be interesting to know if when waterboarding has been used, how much of the information obtained was helpful, and how much was bogus. Certainly something to think about.
I could care less if it works. I think in Iran chopping off peoples arms at public events for the crime of theft probably works pretty well to deter others from crime. But ultimately who cares? It doesn't matter if it works because it is abhorrent. Read through the Bill of Rights and you will see a list of things that are probably pretty effective and expedient which are banned because they are abhorrent. If you argue that we should torture because it works, then why shouldn't the police search anybody's home without cause? I'm sure that would work to increase lawfulness and order. You can also really streamline the government by disbanding the senate, eliminating elections, and declaring Bush emperor. Ultimately we act with restraint. Effectiveness is not the bottom line because we want to live in a civil society with individual liberties, not some Soviet police state, or Islamic caliphate. In the USA, utility is not the bottom line for policy.
Let's waterboard everyone in the USA. Call it a right-of-passage. Even if only 1 in a million has any useful information, it would be well worth it. Think of the lives that would be saved. Make waterboarding a constitutionally protected right of the government, while you are at it.
I think it works in one situation: When the person being tortured really knows the information that he is being interrogated about. But what makes it ineffective is that if he doesn't know, he will tell the interrogator anything to get the torture to stop. So while you certainly can gain knowledge from it, it still isn't really effective. Besides that, the human rights violations are more important.
no. clutch says thats too short. nah, terrorists want to bring the great USA to their primal level. yes, everyday terrorists' basic theory is bring yah down to their gutter existence. you'll be torturing. killing innocents. subverting popular political will. policy aligned to your foe.
