Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktA great deal of the debate about torture focuses, understandably, on whether torture, or enhanced interrogation, or what one will, is legal. Apart questions about legality, the practice of torture raises a number of interesting questions.
Do We Know Very Much About Torture?
As far as I know, we don’t know a great deal about torture. I don’t doubt that there are studies, but I find it hard to believe that there is, at present, good reliable research on torture. Given ethical concerns, I don’t see how experiments could be conducted to try to determine the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of torture.
And that seems to leave us with a host of questions for which we don’t appear to have answers.
Is it reasonable to expect that torture will yield actionable intelligence? Do people often lie under torture? Do people try to mislead interrogators who are torturing them?
Without more information on torture, information which I suspect, we do not have, it’s very difficult to see how a strong case for or against it could be made on the basis of the quality of the information interrogators are likely to extract.
Who Will Torture?
If torture is employed, someone will have to do it. Who? Ethical concerns would, I assume, rule out doctors. Should soldiers do it, CIA employees? Why these persons and not others? How should these people be trained? What kind of programs, if any, need to be set up to produce persons best able to extract information by using torture?
Should Law Enforcement Torture?
Assuming that torture is beneficial, should law enforcement be permitted to use it? If torture is beneficial, then why not allow law enforcement to employ that tool? If law enforcement ought not to be given that tool, then why should others be allowed to employ that tool?
How Should Innocent People Who are Tortured Be Compensated?
If torture is employed, innocent and non-innocent people will be tortured just as innocent and non-innocent people will be put to death if the death penalty is employed. How should the innocent, people who were mistaken for enemy combatants, for example, be compensated?
Does Torture Give the Enemy an Incentive to Fight to the Death?
Traditionally, fear of torture at the hands of the enemy is often a reason to avoid capture at all costs, even at the costs of one’s own life. Fear of torture may give an individual an incentive to fight to the death or to take his or her own life. That is not, arguably, a particularly attractive proposition. Enemy combatants who have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated well if they are taken prisoner may not fight as viciously and may be more willing to surrender. Assuming that an enemy less inclined to fight as viciously as possible and more willing to surrender is desirable would torture be detrimental to that goal?
Would Torture Discourage Enemies?
Would torturing prisoners discourage individuals from taking up arms or cause them to act in a less vicious manner? Would individuals interested in doing harm refrain from doing so, or do less harm, if they knew that upon being captured they could expect to be treated harshly?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Not to get all Scott on you (snicker,) but shouldn't we first have some sort of rough definition of torture? I'm sure we can agree that bamboo under the fingernails is torture, but there are many who would argue that there are plenty of psychological things that could be employed (lying, staged pictures, mock executions) that could be defined as torture.I think your questions a very interesting and provacative, but I think we should narrow the definition first.
LikeLike
Harming an individual, physically or psychologically, so as to cause pain in a situation in which the individual is, effectively, defenseless.
LikeLike
I tend to agree that, at the root of the problem, is a disagreement on what constitutes torture. I don't think we should torture, for a number of reasons, and I'm dubious about even borderline methodologies that we euphemistically refer to as "enhanced interrogation". But what about being in a small cell where you hear messages encouraging cooperation with your captors for 16 hours a day, or sleep deprivation, or using specific knowledge of the captors life to make vague but menacing threats? If we agree that something is torture–racks, drills, anything that does permanent physical damage–I suspect the majority of us are going to say no torture. There will always be a pro "bad guys deserve whatever they get" contingent, but actual physical torture is going to leave the majority of Americans queasy. The ticking time bomb scenario is going to come up, but we almost never have that scenario. In such circumstances–such as the firing of a firearm near a suspect who knows information about an imminent attack–perhaps there can be extenuating circumstances. But even in that example, it's really psychological torture, using credible threat to evoke fear. I'm not a fan of the idea that torture cannot extract reliable data, because the tortured person will "confess to anything". However, if you are torturing for verifiable information rather than a show-trial confession, it follows that a tortured person, in most cases, will tell you anything, and if the data is verifiable, they will give you actionable intelligence. If the option is to be tortured more, once the provided intelligence proves to be unreliable, they will have a tremendous motivation to relay reliable information. That having been said, I believe the capture of Bin Ladin suggests that the best information comes from killing high value targets outright and capturing their papers, computers, and other methods of data storage. The next best is on the ground intelligence–which sometimes involves paying unsavory people money to extract good data. While there was some debate over the appropriateness of killing Bin Ladin (I personally find this difficult to digest, but there it was), much data was apparently captured, and this seems a much more productive and less controversial way of acquiring highly valuable strategic data.
LikeLike
"if you are torturing for verifiable information rather than a show-trial confession, it follows that a tortured person, in most cases, will tell you anything, and if the data is verifiable, they will give you actionable intelligence."This may be the case, but I just don't know what the evidence for this is. As far as I know, there just isn't a great deal of information about what happens when you torture in the hopes of extracting information. I might be wrong about that, but I'm not aware of extensive, long term studies of torture and its effectiveness.
LikeLike
"Do people often lie under torture? Do people try to mislead interrogators who are torturing them?"John McCain, who has first-hand experience with being tortured, has answered "yes" to both these questions.
LikeLike
NathanI followed a link to another link etc. about 7 or 8 months ago I think, that was based on interviews of people involved in interrogation in both the military and law enforcement. I don't know if I could ever find it again but it was really interesting. The general consensus was that not even harsh interrogation techniques were all that effective and the most successful methods were establishing a rapport with the detainee and offering carrots so to speak. It wasn't a particularly scientific exercise in determining efficacy of torture but I thought it was surprising the number of professionals who were against not only torture but even harsh interrogation.
LikeLike
Compiling accounts from torturers and individuals who have been tortured might provide some assistance, but I'm skeptical. Torture aimed at extracting information seem (and I might be wrong about this) to be unusual. I suspect that even if we could overcome ethical qualms and study it, that's its not frequent enough to yield reliable information. Again, I could be wrong.
LikeLike
I think you have to leave the psychological aspect to the side. Apart from the thorny issue of determining exactly when psychological "harm" has occurred, the whole point of any interrogation is to alter the psychology of the person under question in order to get him to cease resistance to providing information.Better I think to stick with the idea of physical torture. And, on that, it seems to me that some kind of prolonged or repeated infliction of serious and permanent physical harm is required.Of course, asking to define torture is much like asking to define "pornography" or "hot". At what point does art turn into porn? At what point does a warm day turn into a hot day? At what point does intentional discomfort turn into torture?
LikeLike
"This may be the case, but I just don't know what the evidence for this is."Fair enough, and John McCain is clearly a credible witness. But I still think it makes an unconvincing arguments for people who are pro "enhanced interrogation", and the way the argument is typically phrased seems nonsensical to me. That is, the argument is made:A person will confess to anything (or say anything) to make the torture stop. Ergo, torture is unreliable.However, if we presuppose the first part, then clearly, providing the highest quality data you possess as a interrogatee is the best way to make the torture stop, and not have it resume at a later time. Unless you feel certain you will be released, can escape, or will die before the quality of your information is verified, if avoiding torture is your primary motivation, there is a strong motivation to disclose reliable information, if you have it. Of course, you may not have it. At what point can someone torturing somebody for information reliable determine that you actually don't know anything? We are not likely to ever have good stats for the reliability of torture as a methodology for extracting information (and that, in the end, is a good thing).So all we are left with is the hypotheticals, and the argument that someone will do anything to stop the torture (a reasonable assertion) thus makes the information of a captive unreliable, when information can be verified and the captive returned to for further interrogation . . . I find that a weak argument. As you note, there are no studies of the effectiveness, but that cuts both ways. We cannot know, but I find the largely unsupported (and, to me, counterintuitive–see previous discussion on Common Sense) assertion that information extracted by torture is unreliable–the poorest argument against torture, and there are many better ones.
LikeLike
"At what point does art turn into porn?"The moment you finally pique my interest. ;)"At what point does a warm day turn into a hot day?" At 73°. This isn't complicated at all!"At what point does intentional discomfort turn into torture?"The moment anything I don't like, at all, is done to me. : )
LikeLike
"The general consensus was that not even harsh interrogation techniques were all that effective and the most successful methods were establishing a rapport with the detainee and offering carrots so to speak."I believe this was the strategy of the North Koreans during the Korean war. The North Koreans used carrots, calm persuasion, and driving wedges between POWs in order to obtain the greatest cooperation from POWs in history, if I am not mistaken (it has been a while since I encountered this story). It's still a form of psychological manipulation, but it's probably the more effective one when it comes to getting real collaboration. Even if the information provided via torture is reliable, a torture victim could establish credibility by providing reliable data, while claiming not to know the most important piece of information–which he in fact knows, but will not disclose, instead saving himself from torture by providing true and important but less critical information. If this person had become a collaborator, they'd be much more prone to provide the most critical data they know.
LikeLike
Kevin:I believe this was the strategy of the North Koreans during the Korean war. The North Koreans used carrots, calm persuasion, and driving wedges between POWs in order to obtain the greatest cooperation from POWs in history, I though they just brainwashed them.
LikeLike
This is a conversation which, on the PL, had qb and me at each other's throats, so I'm going to stay out of this one entirely.
LikeLike
Highly recommend Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" to anyone who hasn't read it.
LikeLike
A quick study could be conducted by reading the writings of our own POWs. And I believe McCain has written that in his case, torture was "successful," in that he gave up information and signed documents / made recordings that he knew would be used for propaganda. I'm not knocking him, I salute his bravery and service, I'm just saying that I don't think McCain has said it doesn't work, just that it's wrong.
LikeLike
"I though they just brainwashed them."Scott, indeed, but part of that process was building identification with their captors, building rapport, and using various tactics to drive wedges between susceptible POWs and their fellow POWs. This process also, as I recall, involved sleep deprivation and diet manipulation, which some may consider torture, but, on the whole, proved very effective. Michigoose: that's often the best strategy. I'm going to do my best (not to say that I will be successful) to avoid conversations involving race or global warming, the conversations which most often end with someone trying to strangle me. Metaphorically speaking.
LikeLike
Thanks, Kevin!Nathan, your post is well thought out and well written, but I have very strong feelings about torture.
LikeLike
A couple of other questions:If we decide that we are OK with torture, who gets to decide who gets tortured?If we decide we are not OK with torture but are fine with "enhanced interrogation" who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
LikeLike
"However, if we presuppose the first part, then clearly, providing the highest quality data you possess as a interrogatee is the best way to make the torture stop, and not have it resume at a later time."I've wondered about this. On the one hand, I can see why this would make sense for just this reason.On the other hand, does yielding valuable information invite further torture in the hopes of obtaining more? If one gives up valuable information, would that encourage interrogators to continue torture, to torture more, in the hopes of achieving the same or better results? Would denying all knowledge be a better strategy? Would torturers give up sooner and move on to someone else?I have no idea.Further, this brings in the question of the interrogators. Focusing attention on how the tortured will behave, what they will say, when they will say it, how reliable what they say will be, is understandable, but questions about how interrogators using torture will behave also arise and, as far as I can see, we just don't know much about that either.How reliable will torturers be? Will they need special training? What kind? How would one give them that training without violating ethical strictures? Does using torture make interrogators lazy? Does it make them more better interrogators?
LikeLike
"but questions about how interrogators using torture will behave also arise and, as far as I can see, we just don't know much about that either."What we do know does not suggest that the positions are going to attract savory and mentally well-adjusted folks."How reliable will torturers be? Will they need special training? What kind? How would one give them that training without violating ethical strictures? Does using torture make interrogators lazy? Does it make them more better interrogators?"All good questions, but unlikely to ever be answered. We'd have to have data collected under controlled and recorded circumstances, and that is not how torture is generally deployed. And we're not likely to open it up for the possibility to gather such data, so it will always be an area of speculation. Generally, I think we can only speak from our own perspective. Would you want to torture a person? Probably not. Who would want that sort of job? Probably not the kind of person you'd actually want in that kind of position.Lmsinca mentioned a story she had read about profession interrogators not thinking much of torture as a method of interrogation, so it could be that quality interrogators would not want to deploy torture and, if required, would find assignment elsewhere, thus chasing out the people who are actually the best at acquiring information.
LikeLike
Troll writes:I'm just saying that I don't think McCain has said it doesn't work, just that it's wrong."I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear — true or false — if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading."John McCain WaPo Op-ed
LikeLike
Ditto Nathaniel's last point. I'm a wimp & gibe up everything I have at the first threat of bodily harm. But I don't know everything the torturers want to learn. They don't know that & keep turning the screws / dumping the water. So I start to say everything that comes to mind, in search of something that will make the pain stop. This is how forced confessions are generated. In any case, contrary to the earlier conjecture, our experts have established & testified that torture does not work. This was covered extensively during the Bush administration when we first learned about the black sites & us torture program (aka enhanced interrogation).
LikeLike
"While there was some debate over the appropriateness of killing Bin Ladin (I personally find this difficult to digest, but there it was)"This might have been from me. I think he was a legit target. The circumstances surrounding it however just raised enough questioned in my mind into whether or not he was summarily executed, which would have been wrong. but it was more of a bull-session type thing.
LikeLike
michiI'm pretty much with you on this one, I've already had my run-ins and don't feel like repeating them. It almost seems like one of those irreconcilable differences scenarios. Nathan however asked a lot of great questions.
LikeLike
Bsimon, not being snarky, but doesn't Mccains acknowledgement put to bed the idea that torture doesn't work?
LikeLike
"This is how forced confessions are generated."If you get forced confessions from people who otherwise would not confess, it follows that you could probably get good intelligence from somebody (if, we must note, they actually have it). Certainly, if I'm going to confess to doing something I didn't do, I'll give you information I actually have, if it will make the torture stop (assuming, of course, I have the data). I just find the "forced confession" example one that's not a great objection, because, to some, it can illustrate what it seeks to disprove. Better to raise other objections (such as: there are superior methods to gathering intelligence).
LikeLike
As to what constitutes torture, I accept the standards announced in the treaties to which we are party. I accept the Army Field Manual. We do not have to reinvent the wheel and redefine torture to suit our blog.As to whether it can be effective, that depends as much on the examiner as does any other interrogation. As to whether it is more reliable than traditional methods of interrogation, it clearly is not, given a reasonable time.As to whether we can imagine circumstances where it is the only hope, we can. In this respect, when I was a prosecutor, we threw out a kidnapping case because the cop beat the whereabouts of the victim out of the kidnapper. Probably saved the victim's life. I am told the FBI actually has perfected a scenario for this situation now. The Marine JAG Commandant testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee when they asked him a Jack Bauer bomb in Sears Tower scenario. Yes, if he had only 20 minutes to find the bomb and defuse it he would probably beat on the suspect in custody to get the location. But he pointed out that he would also accept his Court Martial, and ask for leniency in sentencing, especially if he saved lives.And because I think it is always wrong to torture, like the JAG officer, if I were compelled to do it in a situation, I would do so knowing that I was subject to charges and I would accept that.Personally, sleep deprivation is plenty enough to wear me down. I am 68.
LikeLike
", but doesn't Mccains acknowledgement put to bed the idea that torture doesn't work?" McCain acknowledges that torture can make people talk. He does not acknowledge that 1) torture produces good information or 2) that it produces information that can not be gained by other methods. so, it depends on what you mean by 'work'. Can we make people talk? Sure. We have methods of making people talk. But is it useful information – actionable intelligence, as they say in the biz? McCain's acknowledgment is that he'd say anything, true or not. We know that KSM was waterboarded over 100 times. To me that says torture doesn't work. But someone in a position to make the decisions said, "maybe if we strap him down one more time, he'll talk. This time he'll tell us what he knows." But apparently he never convinced that person that he gave up everything. And there have been some strong implications that he gave us a bunch of bad information in the process.
LikeLike
"I just find the "forced confession" example one that's not a great objection, because, to some, it can illustrate what it seeks to disprove"I'm not following. You're saying that because an innocent will plead guilt to make the pain stop, the guilty will also cave. I'm not so sure that is true, particularly if we're talking about fanatics.
LikeLike
Perhaps not. In any case, it's clearly not the best way to get good information. But an objection that treats interrogation for the point of extracting information as identical too interrogation for the point of extracting a false confession remains a less persuasive argument, to me.
LikeLike