Waterboarding Rocks!

[Prometheus]

That's certainly true. That's why different countries can have vastly different laws. That's why laws can be very flawed. That's why we should be very careful about putting law above individual conscience and one's views of "good" and "evil" in ANY circumstance. That's why we have to be careful that our laws don't discourage truly legitimate and moral actions by those defending us from truly evil people. That's why when it comes to fighting wars, soldiers are allowed to harm others without risk of trial in most instances. Because in that situation, a judgement has been made that ruling all killing illegal would intimidate those soldiers and possibly cost one victory in battle. Now, we are fighting an enemy of a different sort, using soldiers of a different sort, and we need to address the same issue ... rather than avoid it ... which liberals seem to be doing.

I don't see how you are making the logical leap from 'Rule of Law is abstract' to any of the conclusions you draw here. In particular, I think you are wrong to try to equate torture during interrogation to soldiers killing during war. The PR coup of labeling what's going on a "War On Terror" appears to have done its job in confusing you mightily.

It ALWAYS matters what one thinks. You have to live with yourself. And the law can affect your behavior. It can intimidate you into non-action when you really needed to have acted to save as many lives as have been lost in some wars. There are people out there who really would choose to do nothing because of fear of prosecution ... even though in their hearts they would admit that letting a hundred thousand die rather than inflict a little pain on one person is the morally wrong thing to do.

No, it always matters to oneself what one thinks. And I don't believe your claim that there are people who would do nothing in the same situation out of fear of prosecution, but even if they do exist that's still irrelevant, as I expect that such people would never be offered a job interrogating high-value terror suspects.

Good for you. You've shown you are rational.

While I thank you for the intended compliment, I'm afraid I can't accept it at face value. The fact is, I would be acting neither rationally, nor morally. I would be acting solely from emotion. That my emotional response might possibly turn out to have a desirable result does not make it rational or right.

But then why is a soldier on the battle field any different. I would presume that in my hypothetical you would be acting in the capacity of an authorized defender of national security. A soldier of sorts. Obviously, if that person you tortured was indeed involved in the plot he would necessarily be an enemy combatant. Since when do nations try soldiers for hurting enemy combatants who are attempting to kill friendlies? Maybe the law is lagging behind the reality of the world today?

The main difference is that in the interrogation scenario, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not my victim actually does have information that will allow me to save lives--and that can be extracted via torture--until after I've committed torture. Battle is a very different animal. And even in war, soldiers are not allowed to torture their prisoners.

I don't think under the described circumstances you would be punished. I think the court would discover an instance where the people say the law is wrong. And that might result in changes to the law. Perhaps a more rational one.

Perhaps not. Were I in that position, I would certainly be hoping for a jury nullification, but I would not go so far as to say that I deserved one. Either way, I still would not want to see the law changed to allow my behaviour.

 

[Texas]

Someone posted a link the other day that said KSM was waterboarded 266 times. Was that confirmed?

After how many times did he start to talk? 266 times seems a lot, my guess is that if that technique worked, they wouldn't have needed to use it no more than a couple of times, right?

I have yet to see any confirmation. It may be true but it has not been a part of any documents this administration has released. I have read all of them so far. The portion of the document related to waterboarding set out the legal requirement that it could only be used over a 30 day period but only 5 days of the 30. The duration was limited to between one second and no more than 30 seconds at a time. So if it was used that many times it clearly exceeded the limits set forth in the memos.

 

[Nova Land]

So tell us. If you had in your custody a person who you knew with 100% certainty was involved in a plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city ... a plot where the device was already in place ... a plot where you had just hours before it was set to go off ... and this person was likely to know the location of the device ... would you torture? Or would you in your high minded view of things just let several hundred thousand Americans die?

You seem to think this is an important question.

I'm willing to answer your hypothetical. But let's not limit ourselves to one hypothetical. Let's examine two: one in which we have mere hours in which to obtain urgently-needed information, and one in which we have at least a month in which to obtain urgently-needed information.

The former hypothetical is extremely rare. In fact, I don't know of a single case in which this has actually come up. The latter, in contrast, is a rather reasonable concern in the world we live in. Cases in which deaths in the hundreds of thousands were at stake may be a bit over-the-top -- but cases in which deaths in the hundreds or thousands were at stake certainly have come up and been dealt with many times. So I'll address the latter, more likely, hypothetical first -- and then I'll address your highly unlikely construct in my next post.

In both our hypotheticals time is ticking away (albeit much more quickly in one) and we don't have time to use every available method. The choice to use one method may take away time from -- or even undercut the effectiveness of -- the use of another method.

And in both the hypotheticals, the use of torture is one available choice. Another choice is to use conventional interrogation methods such as those recommended by Jack Cloonan, Daniel Coleman, Stuart Herrington and other professional interrogators.

For the sake of brevity, I'll limit myself in this post to one quote from Herrington in describing these methods (although I encourage people to view the videos at the Cloonan link for additional description, and would be happy to explore these methods at greater length in a separate thread if more explanation or discussion is needed):

[O]btaining information from a captive who is motivated by his beliefs, his country, his honor or perhaps by the very human desire to live a full life with his family, is an elusive task that requires a patient, systematic approach.

One has to "go to school" on each captive. Who is he? Can I communicate with him in his language? What are his core beliefs? His loves? Hates? Fears? Where do his loyalties lie? Does he have a family, an inflated ego, perhaps some other core vulnerability? Does he have a hobby or some passion that might get him talking? ...

Seasoned interrogators know that an important first step is to disarm one's adversary by resorting to the unexpected. Treat a captured general or colonel with dignity and respect. Better yet, treat a sergeant like he is a colonel or general.

... We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality. Patience was essential. We rejected the view that interrogators could merely "take off the gloves" and that information would somehow magically flow if we brutalized our "guests."

As a skeptic, I'm be inclined to go with Herrington's methods, which have a reasonably well-established track record of results, rather than go with methods such as torture, for which the record seems murky. (No one in this thread, for example, has yet been able to provide a single example in which water-boarding was of any help in preventing a terrorist attack.)

Note that the use of torture is antithetical to the successful use of professional interrogation procedures. To use torture will undercut the effectiveness of these methods. At the very least the use of torture will increase the length of time it takes for Herrington's methods to work. With the clock ticking, that may be time which can't be spared.

In contrast, there is little to no evidence that torture on its own will produce the information we need. So using torture, far from saving lives, may result in losing lives which could have been saved.

Therefore a question needs to be asked of those who advocate the use of torture. Suppose there is not an incredibly-short time limit (necessitating the use of unconventional methods because it is felt conventional methods can't produce results quickly enough) as in the artificial hypothetical which has been constructed, but rather a more normal situation in which there is sufficient time for conventional methods to work. Are you willing to forbid the use of dubious techniques such as water-boarding and to let professional interrogators use the methods which over time have been found to be most effective and most reliable? Or would you support the use of dubious techniques such as water-boarding, and risk letting several hundreds of thousand of Americans die?

Now, there may be those who believe that "coddling" prisoners is wrong, and who feel that renouncing such treatment is more important than saving lives. For them, attempting to use torture to obtain the needed information rather than getting it through methods such as Herrington's might be a matter of principle.

But is this principle truly worth risking hundreds of thousands of lives? Please, BeAChooser, say it ain't so! I hope you agree that saving lives is more important than getting to inflict pain upon captives, and that therefore torture should be forbidden in all cases other than your only-a few-hours-left ticking-time-bomb scenario.

 

[Nova Land]

In the previous post I posed the hypothetical that we have a dire situation but a month or more in which to get urgently-needed information, and wanted to know whether those who advocate the use of torture would be willing to forbid the use of torture in such a case (in order to give interrogators the greatest chance of success at obtaining the needed information) or whether they would stand on their pro-torture principles even though this risks letting several hundred thousand Americans die.

I look forward to the response from torture advocates. But fair is fair, so now let's take the companion hypothetical:

So tell us. If you had in your custody a person who you knew with 100% certainty was involved in a plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city ... a plot where the device was already in place ... a plot where you had just hours before it was set to go off ... and this person was likely to know the location of the device ...

And the question we need to ask ourselves is: Would you accept the help of Noreen Renier to help you locate the device? Or would you in your high minded view of things just let several hundred thousand Americans die?

Time is ticking. We don't have time to use every single possible method. And the use of one method may keep us from using another method.

In this case, Noreen is willing to use her psychic abilities on the captive to get clues to the location of the device. But she can't do this if you're torturing the captive; the trauma the captive is going through, she says, will interfere with her psychic abilities.

So far one example has been put forth in which the use of water-boarding enabled authorities to break up a terror plot before the water-boarding was even done. That's pretty impressive! But psychic detectives such as Noreen Renier have numerous equally impressive examples of using their powers to solve crimes and locate missing items.

If you water-board, Noreen won't be able to use her abilities to find the device, and you've let hundreds of thousands of people die unless your torture manages to elicit the information. If you let Noreen proceed, there won't be time to obtain the information through the use of torture, and you've let hundreds of thousands of people die unless Noreen's powers come through. Which choice do you make -- and why?

That's the problem with the hypothetical as originally posed. It assumes there are only two choices: use established methods, which are known to be effective but for which a hypothetical has been constructed in which there probably isn't sufficient time for them to work, or use a non-traditional method for which there is no established track record but for which there is sufficient time for it to work if the method actually did work.

But there are hundreds of unproven non-traditional methods from which to choose. Arbitrarily selecting torture, and saying that anyone who isn't willing to use that is willing to let hundreds of thousands die, is no more sensible than arbitrarily selecting a "psychic detective" and saying anyone not willing to use that person's help is willing to let hundreds of thousands die.

As for my answer to the hypothetical: No, I would not torture the captive -- nor would I engage the services of Noreen Renier -- since in my estimation both these choices would reduce rather than increase the chance of detecting and de-activating the device. Even though the short amount of time in the hypothetical before the device goes off reduces the chance of traditional methods working in time, that still seems like a better chance for getting accurate information in time than the use of torture or the use of psychics.

If there were any good evidence that the use of torture or the use of psychics were more likely to produce useful results than conventional interrogation methods, then this might be a difficult moral choice. But since the available evidence seems to indicate that refraining from torture is more likely to succeed than torture is, my choice is easy. Any choice is a risk -- but in this case, refusing to indulge in torture appears to offer the lowest risk of the available choices.

 

[Spinelli]

This reminds me of the discussions opponents to same sex marriage made - what next polygamy- donkeys???? There is either a standard for a social contract or there is not. There is no equivalence to these matters whatsoever. To think there were (an equivalence to violent acts) would invoke a call to zen that I for one haven't enjoyed yet.

Marriage means one thing as does torture - if you want to define it as something else then for goodness sake have the termity to create a new word.
Its not marriage - perhaps Enhanced Intercourse Technique

mmmm.

in either case - some consent would be nice.

 

[Nova Land]

What a professional interrogator says about the use of torture in interrogations:

"Some die-hards on the right -- who have never interrogated anyone -- are already arguing that forcing interrogations to be conducted within army field manual guidelines is a step backward and will result in 'coddling' dangerous terrorists," retired Colonel Stuart Herrington, who served for more than 30 years as a military intelligence officer, said soon after the order was signed. "This is a common, but uninformed view. Experienced, well-trained, professional interrogators know that interrogation is an art. It is a battle of wits, not muscle. It is a challenge that can be accomplished within the military guidelines without resorting to brutality."

I think Herrington nails it on the head in that comment. If a time-bomb is ticking, and we have to gamble on how to obtain the information to defuse it, I'd rather rely on the expertise of people such as Stuart Herrington than on the fantasy notions of people who have watched one too many episode of 24.

 

[Pardalis]

perhaps Enhanced Intercourse Technique

No, there's already a word for that: S&M.

 

[Texas]

In the previous post I posed the hypothetical that we have a dire situation but a month or more in which to get urgently-needed information, and wanted to know whether those who advocate the use of torture would be willing to forbid the use of torture in such a case (in order to give interrogators the greatest chance of success at obtaining the needed information) or whether they would stand on their pro-torture principles even though this risks letting several hundred thousand Americans die.

I look forward to the response from torture advocates. But fair is fair, so now let's take the companion hypothetical:




And the question we need to ask ourselves is: Would you accept the help of Noreen Renier to help you locate the device? Or would you in your high minded view of things just let several hundred thousand Americans die?

Time is ticking. We don't have time to use every single possible method. And the use of one method may keep us from using another method.

In this case, Noreen is willing to use her psychic abilities on the captive to get clues to the location of the device. But she can't do this if you're torturing the captive; the trauma the captive is going through, she says, will interfere with her psychic abilities.

So far one example has been put forth in which the use of water-boarding enabled authorities to break up a terror plot before the water-boarding was even done. That's pretty impressive! But psychic detectives such as Noreen Renier have numerous equally impressive examples of using their powers to solve crimes and locate missing items.

If you water-board, Noreen won't be able to use her abilities to find the device, and you've let hundreds of thousands of people die unless your torture manages to elicit the information. If you let Noreen proceed, there won't be time to obtain the information through the use of torture, and you've let hundreds of thousands of people die unless Noreen's powers come through. Which choice do you make -- and why?

That's the problem with the hypothetical as originally posed. It assumes there are only two choices: use established methods, which are known to be effective but for which a hypothetical has been constructed in which there probably isn't sufficient time for them to work, or use a non-traditional method for which there is no established track record but for which there is sufficient time for it to work if the method actually did work.

But there are hundreds of unproven non-traditional methods from which to choose. Arbitrarily selecting torture, and saying that anyone who isn't willing to use that is willing to let hundreds of thousands die, is no more sensible than arbitrarily selecting a "psychic detective" and saying anyone not willing to use that person's help is willing to let hundreds of thousands die.

As for my answer to the hypothetical: No, I would not torture the captive -- nor would I engage the services of Noreen Renier -- since in my estimation both these choices would reduce rather than increase the chance of detecting and de-activating the device. Even though the short amount of time in the hypothetical before the device goes off reduces the chance of traditional methods working in time, that still seems like a better chance for getting accurate information in time than the use of torture or the use of psychics.

If there were any good evidence that the use of torture or the use of psychics were more likely to produce useful results than conventional interrogation methods, then this might be a difficult moral choice. But since the available evidence seems to indicate that refraining from torture is more likely to succeed than torture is, my choice is easy. Any choice is a risk -- but in this case, refusing to indulge in torture appears to offer the lowest risk of the available choices.

What if we had accidentally stopped Atta on Sept 10th, 2001 for a traffic violation and found his "Martyr Tape" in the back seat. The police calls the FBI and they view it and ask Atta what it means. He says you will know tomorrow, smiles and asks for a lawyer. What should the FBI do?

 

[Texas]

btaining information from a captive who is motivated by his beliefs, his country, his honor or perhaps by the very human desire to live a full life with his family, is an elusive task that requires a patient, systematic approach.

So can anyone see any problem with the above statement when it relates to Islamic terrorists ?

 

[Nova Land]

Someone posted a link the other day that said KSM was waterboarded 266 times. Was that confirmed?

I believe that's incorrect. The story I read said that two prisoners were water-boarded a total of 266 times -- 183 times for KSM, 83 times for the other.

(Apart from that minor quibble, you raise excellent questions. It seems to me that water-boarding that many times is more likely to be to get someone to agree to say what you are asking them to say than to provide information. That, after all, is what torture has traditionally been used for and how historically it has been shown to work best.)

 

[Pardalis]

(Apart from that minor quibble, you raise excellent questions. It seems to me that water-boarding that many times is more likely to be to get someone to agree to say what you are asking them to say than to provide information. That, after all, is what torture has traditionally been used for and how historically it has been shown to work best.)

Also, if it took 183 times for KSM to finally "open up", this means this technique would not be the right one to apply in the hypothetical scenario, since time is of the essence.

 

[Texas]

Also, if it took 183 times for KSM to finally "open up", this means this technique would not be the right one to apply in the hypothetical scenario, since time is of the essence.

It would also have violated the limits the legal opinion memos placed on its use. That would mean that Obama was wrong to let the CIA interrogators off the hook.

 

[Spinelli]

Torture - evil - subsume the will to that of the other. Perhaps a greater moral outrage than actually killing.

Coercion> getting what one wants through guile, wit or posed threat.
Coercion is the key.
Survellance is our strong suit.

Killing is an infringement of the right to life and the right to autonomy. Torture is an infringement of the right to autonomy, but not necessarily of the right to life.

Torture is a terrorist tactic.

The elimination of torture cultures and sub-institutions can only be achieved if torture is unlawful.

Loss of privacy seemed to go hand in hand with a government and military seeking more and more information.

There is an inherent institutional receptivity of military, police, and correctional institutions to the practice of torture.

Would not the use of passive surveillance supervene in all torture cases as the natural legal way to proceed?

Would it not make more sense to always outlaw torture and always allow for evesdropping?

 

[Nova Land]

What if we had accidentally stopped Atta on Sept 10th, 2001 for a traffic violation and found his "Martyr Tape" in the back seat. The police calls the FBI and they view it and ask Atta what it means. He says you will know tomorrow, smiles and asks for a lawyer. What should the FBI do?

You needed to quote my entire post to ask that?

I have no idea which part of my post you think you are responding to with this rather silly question. But the answer appears simple: the FBI should send in a trained interrogator.

It's possible that a trained interrogator, acting professionally and using the best methods, will fail to elicit the necessary information. Likewise it's possible that a skilled poker player, keeping careful track of the cards and calculating the odds correctly, will lose a key hand. But the odds are that a skilled pro making all the right moves is going to succeed a lot more often than some amateur who thinks learning the right moves is too much work.

With that many lives at stake, we can't afford to indulge in some emotional desire to inflict pain. If ever there were a time to call skilled professionals in and have them do their job to the best of their ability, the hypothetical you're setting up is it. Why you would put a higher priority on torturing a captive than stopping a disaster baffles me.

 

[BeAChooser]

No, I am not willing to torture one person to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

Keep in mind folks, this is the mentality of the people who now seem to be running this country. Feel safer?

Your suspect escapes into a refugee camp of 99 innocent people. You know that one person has the information that you need and the other 99 are innocent. Would you be willing to torture all 100 to get the information you need to save 1000 innocent lives? Isn't 10 for 1 a fair trade?

Speaking of plausible scenarios many of those people in the refugee camp would likely to be very old or children and can probably be ruled out on that basis initially. And some of the refugees would be willing to credibly vouch for one another making it less likely they are the escapee. And perhaps a few others might be ruled out on some basis or another ... like their health. And since you must have some info that allows you to suspect a particular person, you would probably know the sex of your target. So perhaps the initial group you need to suspect is only 10-20 out of the hundred. And probabilistically, you wouldn't likely have to torture all of them find the one you need. You might, but it's not likely. Maybe non-torturous questioning could eliminate some of those from suspicion. And the response of others to very brief torture might eliminate them from suspicion. So now the question is whether you administer pain to half a dozen to prevent the death of a 1000 ... or perhaps many more than a 1000 since that number has to be uncertain because you don't know the details of the plot. Trading injury to 6 people for the lives of a thousand? Our society makes that sort of trade all the time in war, gdnp. And this is a war.

Or how about this:

You have water boarded, sleep deprived, and electric shocked your subject with no results. Time is running out. Fortuitously, you capture his pregnant wife, who supports her husband's cause but does not know the crucial information that he holds. It has already been pointed out that torturing a loved one in front of a suspect is more effective than torturing the suspect himself. Do you torture her in front of her husband with the hope that he will reveal the location of the bomb, saving hundreds of thousands of lives?

Absolutely.

How about hundreds of lives?

Well there is a point at which I'd say no. I'm not willing to specify that point at this time. My only point in this discussion has been that that there is indeed a level at which trading injury to one (or even a few people) for the lives of many is the moral choice.

How about 1 life? How about if it is the life of your child?

Now don't get ridiculous in your effort to defend moral equivalency, gdnp.

What if you aren't completely sure a captured terrorist has any information of value? What if you don't really know if he does or not?

I've already said that you likely wouldn't be 100 percent certain. NOTHING is certain in life. ALL situations are probabilistic. You just have to do the best you can. And again, there is a difference between being 95% certain and being 5% certain. You don't seem to see that difference because you have no moral clarity.

 

[BeAChooser]

BaC keeps using the phrase "a little pain" when the subject here is torture which is by definition "severe pain".

Do you realize that we waterboard some of our own troops just to give them the experience of what they might expect if captured by our enemies? But we don't kill them to give them that experience, do we.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry--a bit of a derail from torture itself, but the invasion and occupation of Iraq is intimately connected to torture during the Bush administration.

So is BDS.

 

[Nova Land]

Obtaining information from a captive who is motivated by his beliefs, his country, his honor or perhaps by the very human desire to live a full life with his family, is an elusive task that requires a patient, systematic approach.

So can anyone see any problem with the above statement when it relates to Islamic terrorists ?

Well, let's see. The essence of the statement is that:

1. Herrington says that obtaining information will be an elusive task.
2. Herrington says that obtaining information will require a patient approach.
3. Herrington says that obtaining information will require a systematic approach.

Yes, that sounds right to me, both as a general statement and as applied specifically to Islamic terrorists. Which of those three things do you think Herrington is wrong about?

 

[BeAChooser]

In the universe of possible actions, it's wrong to say your choice is to torture someone or to do nothing whatsoever.

If you say so, Joe.

 

[Spinelli]

I've already said that you likely wouldn't be 100 percent certain. NOTHING is certain in life. ALL situations are probabilistic. You just have to do the best you can. And again, there is a difference between being 95% certain and being 5% certain. You don't seem to see that difference because you have no moral clarity.

Is that in polynomial time? My moral clarity goes pretty grey on polynomial time.