The Dark Art of Interrogation

[RandFan]

The Dark Art of Interrogation

Today, espionage, terror, and psychological warfare collide at specially-designed prisons like Guantanamo Bay, where masters of information-gathering practice the age-old art of interrogation. After 9/11, the US and other countries initiated a new rationale about use of elaborate psychological manipulation to ward off world terrorism. Enter that shadowy world with former CIA Agent Keith Hall, who defends his brutal interrogation of a Lebanese terrorist suspect. Meet Michael Koubi, an Israeli interrogator whose theatrics and deception produce exceptional results. Special Forces operative Bill Cowan explains how battlefield interrogations in Vietnam helped save lives, and US POWs describe the hell they endured. Former Afghan and Pakistani occupants of Camp X-Ray and Palestinian terrorist suspects also offer firsthand accounts. Best-selling author Mark Bowden (Black Hawk Down) guides us through a morally gray world the government would rather you not enter.

Outstanding show. I recommend anyone interested in this issue to watch the program. I don't know when it will be televised again but it is for sale. The Dark Art of Interrogation DVD

Some points (as I remember them) from the movie:

• Contrary to claims made torture and murder occurred at the Hanoi Hilton up to and until the release of the prisoners.
  
• Interrogating techniques can be very effective.
  
• Torture is not necessary but it can be effective when time is of the essence.
  
• Torture is actually permissible on a case by case basis but the interrogator must make the decision to proceed knowing full well that he or she could be subject to prosecution and the decision must be made based upon the "ticking clock" principle. In other words lives must be in imminent danger and the interrogator must reasonably believe that he can save lives by using torture.
  
• Everyone tortured will break at some point.
  
• Torture will not guarantee accurate information and in fact it often produces bad intelligence.
  
• America was viewed with contempt for not having the will to torture prisoners by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
  
• Interrogators typically followed the rules but learned how to bend the rules to the point of breaking.
  
• Brutality is inherent in a prison setting.
  
• The brutality that came to a head at Abu Ghraib was not directed from the top down.
  
• The atrocities that took place were in part the result of inaction and policies of the Bush administration.
  
• The rules allowed for sleep depravation but only so long as the interviewer stayed up as long as the prisoner and there could be no swapping of interrogators.

 

[peptoabysmal]

$12.95 is a bargain for a new release DVD.
I think I will get this one and watch it. Thanks RF.

 

[Manny]

Check your cable, P. On my system it's on at this very moment.

 

[Art Vandelay]

America was viewed with contempt for not having the will to torture prisoners by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Did you mean "Al Qaeda and the Taliban viewed America with contempt for not having the will to torture prisoners"? Bit of a difference in meaning.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Did you mean "Al Qaeda and the Taliban viewed America with contempt for not having the will to torture prisoners"? Bit of a difference in meaning.

"I once shot a bear in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know". --Graucho Marx.

Yes.

 

[Bjorn]

Torture is actually permissible on a case by case basis but the interrogator must make the decision to proceed knowing full well that he or she could be subject to prosecution and the decision must be made based upon the "ticking clock" principle. In other words lives must be in imminent danger and the interrogator must reasonably believe that he can save lives by using torture.

I'm sorry if I'm slow, but permissible how? Who's issuing the permit?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

I'm sorry if I'm slow, but permissible how? Who's issuing the permit?

Thank you for the question. I watched the show again and this is not quite accurate. My understanding is that any torture would be breaking the law however if it were shown to save lives then that could be a mitigating factor. Also it is known as "the ticking bomb" though I'm not even certain if that is a formal term for anything. I'm really sorry, I'm only trying to relate what I heard which is why I gave the disclaimer. I wish I had recorded it. I plan on purchasing the program. Please don't anyone take any of this as proof of anything. It is only what I'm relating and who is to say that the program is accurate. You do well to wear your skeptic’s hat. However I hope more people will watch and comment. This has been a very big issue for me and I have been involved in a lot of threads and have started a few myself. I have real concerns about Americans being inhumane. That said I honestly don't know where the line exists for techniques I would support and those I wouldn't.

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Thank you for the question. I watched the show again and this is not quite accurate. My understanding is that any torture would be breaking the law however if it were shown to save lives then that could be a mitigating factor. Also it is known as "the ticking bomb" though I'm not even certain if that is a formal term for anything. I'm really sorry, I'm only trying to relate what I heard which is why I cave the disclaimer. I wish I had recorded it. I plan on purchasing the program. Please don't anyone take any of this as proof of anything. It is only what I'm relating and who is to say that the program is accurate. You do well to wear your skeptic’s hat. However I hope more people will watch and comment. This has been a very big issue for me and I have been involved in a lot of threads and have started a few myself. I have real concerns about Americans being inhumane. That said I honestly don't know where the line exists for techniques I would support and those I wouldn't.

Signed and sealed by the United States of America:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Signed and sealed by the United States of America:

Thanks Bjorn,

All I can do is repeat what the show said and note that a number of people spoke to it. Of course my ability or inability to understand what it is I'm watching must be taken into acount. So again, this isn't proof of anything but what I remember from the show.

Could you cite the source?

 

[RandFan]

FWIW, here is an interesting perspective from Alan Dershowitz.

Torture By US Law Enforcement Is "Inevitable," and Might As Well Be Legalized.

"In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to... torture. OK, not cattle prods or rubberhoses, at least not here in the United States, but something to jump-start the stalled investigation of the greatestcrime in American history. Right now, four key hijacking suspects aren't talking at all. Couldn't we at least subjectthem to psychological torture, like tapes of dying rabbits or high-decibel rap?"

Of the many ideas for prosecuting the war on terrorism that have come out of the last few months, the idea that hasmost surprised and angered civil libertarians actually came from one of their own. In an op-ed piece in the LATimes last month, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz suggested using "Torture Warrants": court orders tocontrol what Dershowitz calls the "inevitable" use of torture by U.S. law enforcement. He claims torture isconstitutional, and says its sanctioning by warrant would make it more accountable and transparent. "If we are tohave torture," he argues, "it should be authorized by the law."

 

[WildCat]

I saw that yesterday on the History Channel. It was a very good show, indeed.

BTW, they did interview one ex-CIA agent who beat a prisoner for a confesssion. He thought he was doing his job, but that's why he's now ex-CIA.

However, interrogators do let prisoners think they will be sent to a country that will torture them, even though it's just a ruse. For example, some detainees in Afghanistan who wouldn't reveal information were rounded up, and taken to the airport. Then an interrogator would write "Syria" on a piece of masking tape and stick it on their shirt. Now, the prisoner believed he was about to be taken to Syria to be tortured and suddenly started talking! Other prisoners were allowed to read magazines that had fake stories planted in them. One of the stories was about prisoners of the Afghan war being taken to the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, KS, where they were put on trial and then executed almost immediately afterward. Proved quite effective...

In a sense, the prisoner abuse scandals can be used effectively if the prisoners believe it is actual policy of the US, and not just the actions of a few rogue elements. If they believe it is routine, use it for your advantage.

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Could you cite the source?

My quote was from UN Convention Against Torture.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

My quote was from UN Convention Against Torture.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Hence the "Signed and sealed by the United States of America:" sorry if I'm slow on the uptake. I suppose that if the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon were divuldged due to torture and New York was spared a nuclear explosion that the United States would find a way around the law or ignore it out right. They've ignored international law before haven't they? Please don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be flippant. It is very serious but I do think it is possible for America to choose many Americans over international law. Just a thought.

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Hence the "Signed and sealed by the United States of America:" sorry if I'm slow on the uptake. I suppose that if the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon were divuldged due to torture and New York was spared a nuclear explosion that the United States would find a way around the law or ignore it out right. They've ignored international law before haven't they? Please don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be flippant. It is very serious but I do think it is possible for America to choose many Americans over international law. Just a thought.

One can always look for excuses. Maybe that's why they worded it the way they did?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

One can always look for excuses. Maybe that's why they worded it the way they did?

Would you consider as a hypothetical the morality of torturing one person to save hundreds of thousands?

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Would you consider as a hypothetical the morality of torturing one person to save hundreds of thousands?

Especially if it was your 5 year old daughter being tortured in front of someone else who might know/tell where the bomb was?

Honestly, this (hypothetical) has been discussed in other threads - my point in the posts above was that if the US is torturing now, whatever the excuses, it is not living up to the conventions we have signed.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Especially if it was your 5 year old daughter being tortured in front of someone else who might know/tell where the bomb was?

No, I couldn't choose my daughter. Personal reasons. However that doesn't answer the question asked of you.

Honestly, this (hypothetical) has been discussed in other threads...

What hasn't been discussed before?

...my point in the posts above was that if the US is torturing now, whatever the excuses, it is not living up to the conventions we have signed.

I didn't make the claim that they are torturing now. I said that torture would be permissible. I have since said that regardless of reason it is illegal. Further there could be circumstances that might warrant it (depending on ones POV). If you think that torture is never warranted regardless of circumstance then fine I won't press you. To tell you the truth I find the notion of torture quite troubling. However I think it is something worth discussing. You don't have to agree or participate.

Thanks anyway.

For anyone else who is interested in the subject, are we well suited by the UN agreement that we signed? If we are the only ones who follow the agreement then what good is it? Should there ever be times that our own sovereignty should supersede previously signed agreements?

 

[username]

America was viewed with contempt for not having the will to torture prisoners by Al Qaeda and the Taliban

In my opinion it isn't will, it is principle. The fact that we will not, on principle, torture people is what seperates us from them.

If we abandon those principles or get 'the will' then we have lost the war already for we have become the enemy.

 

[fishbob]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dark Art of Interrogation

For anyone else who is interested in the subject, are we well suited by the UN agreement that we signed? If we are the only ones who follow the agreement then what good is it? Should there ever be times that our own sovereignty should supersede previously signed agreements?

In other words, how inconvenient is inconvenient ehough for it to be OK to dishonor our commitments?

 

[RandFan]

In other words, how inconvenient is inconvenient ehough for it to be OK to dishonor our commitments?

Actually no, please don't put words in my mouth. How serious in danger should we be before we decide to use torture, if at all? And please, I have not argued for torture I'm asking a philosophical question.