McCain on Torture

[foolsguinea]

You won’t believe me, will you believe someone who’s been tortured?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

[NurseCarmen]

Seoconded.

End of debate then?

[Marley23]

@foolsguinea

You won’t believe me, will you believe someone who’s been tortured?

Huh? I already agreed with that. Some people do seem to take the “ticking time bomb” hypothetical too seriously, though.

[SteveG1]

Oh, there are plenty of people who will call for or support torture anyway, and completely ignore whatever McCain has to say on this subject.

[What_the]

@SteveG1

Oh, there are plenty of people who will call for or support torture anyway, and completely ignore whatever McCain has to say on this subject.

Here I come … (but I think I’ll surprise you a little)

Without defining “torture” the point is that it doesn’t provide a better grade of intelligence.

However, one could take that argument to it’s extreme and then say that there is no point in doing any kind of interrogation because no one will tell the truth. Or that even though you get some truth you also would get too much disinfo.

Mightn’t there be a level of “coercive” tactics to get more info or to get info that might not otherwise have slipped out. You still need to qualify the info. You’re still back to defining what reaches the level of “torture”.

[Ravenman]

John McCain was a Packers fan?

[smiling_bandit]

And that’s actually thr isue. The law doesn’t really say what it’s talking about. What’s torture? Annoying someone? What the minimal level of comfort it wants? A standard hotel? A supermax prison?

The law, as written, doesn’t really say anything. And that’s the real issue with it. Anything unpleasant can be construed as torture.

[John_Mace]

@smiling bandit

And that’s actually thr isue. The law doesn’t really say what it’s talking about. What’s torture? Annoying someone? What the minimal level of comfort it wants? A standard hotel? A supermax prison?

The law, as written, doesn’t really say anything. And that’s the real issue with it. Anything unpleasant can be construed as torture.

Actually, McCain’s proposal is to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all government agencies. The problem with the debate is that anyone who disagrees is called “pro-torture”. And, until we know what Cheney specifically wants the CIA to be able to do that isn’t in the AFM, then it’s hard to know whether he’s right or not.

I’m open to the idea that the CIA should be able to go beyond the AFM, but I want to know specifics. Both sides are oversimplifying the debate by making it about “torture”, when it’s really about what interrogations techinques are allowed and which aren’t.

[foolsguinea]

@John Mace

I’m open to the idea that the CIA should be able to go beyond the AFM, but I want to know specifics. Both sides are oversimplifying the debate by making it about “torture”, when it’s really about what interrogations techinques are allowed and which aren’t.

Fair statement.

[Sweet_Mercury]

Interesting. The problem here is the view that the lives of the people we have captured are worth less than other life. The problem with this logic is that our American ideals should be teaching us to assume that people are “innocent until proven guilty,” or at least I thought that was a huge part of the democratic ideals we are spoonfed since birth. Even assuming we have no legal or moral obligation to treat suspects with a degree of humanity, there are more practical reasons.

I recently, for another messgae board, posted thsi bit of practical information, it seems pertinant:

“Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences.” Source - granted, the above sight allows that while torture is not an effective means of information gathering, it is effective for intimidation. But, to that I ask: is it at all effective to intimidate people who are absolutely willing to die to achieve their goals?

“Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress€¦ KUBARK (a codeword for the CIA) is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information.” CIA Vietnam-era interrogation manual Source

"In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter-productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to Longshank. The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king who caused her to be tried; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example…" Source

"Sixth, torture does not work. Debating the effectiveness of torture immediately concedes that torture may be morally permissible if it works. Nonetheless, since arguments for its effectiveness continue to be loudly voiced, it is necessary to combat such arguments, even if it means getting our hands dirty in the process.

Experienced interrogators know that torture produces misinformation rather than information, since victims of torture will confess to anything to make it stop. This could jeopardize rather than protect public safety, as investigators waste precious time chasing up false leads. Torture fell into disuse historically because it didn’t work.

Interrogators have sophisticated techniques for gathering reliable information: the shock of capture and disorientation of detention; offering rewards (like cigarettes, or as US Department of Defense lawyer charmingly wrote, cookies), or withholding privileges; surveillance; psychological pressure; deception (including informants); plea bargaining; and gaining the detainee’s trust. Most detainees are soon worn down by the sheer exhaustion of resisting interrogators. The struggle against terrorism will be won by meticulous and time-honoured police work, not cutting corners through torture." Source [pdf]

There are countless more that sing the same tune. Not to mention, the ICRC rejects it as well. Beyond the “lowering ourselves” and “humanity” arguments they provide some more practical viewpoints:
[ul]
[li]“Torture and other forms of ill treatment may reduce a population’s willingness to cooperate with authorities. The use of ill treatment may actually weaken those who practice it by fuelling resentment among those it wishes to contain.”[/li][li]Specialists disagree on the effectiveness of torture and other forms of ill treatment and raise serious doubts about the quality of information obtained.[/li][/ul]

Final note: Thank’s to John McCain for standing up for standards and decency.

[smiling_bandit]

The problem here is the view that the lives of the people we have captured are worth less than other life. The problem with this logic is that our American ideals should be teaching us to assume that people are “innocent until proven guilty,” or at least I thought that was a huge part of the democratic ideals we are spoonfed since birth.

That applies only to a court of law. We, the citizens of the US, are not, for example, required to find Orenthal Simpson innocent because 12 people were persuaded by Johnnie Cochran. Simpson is guilty as sin in fact, legal presumption or no.

More to the point, the people which we are talking about right now are captured are, at best, guerrillas engaged in murder and insurrection against a soveriegn government, which has a defacto alliance wiht the U.S. of A.

by John Mace
Actually, McCain’s proposal is to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all government agencies.

Not quite accurate. That is indeed part of the law, but McCain’s bill goes way beyond that. The relevant sections are these:

(a) In General.–No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.–In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’’ means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

These latter two sections are not very clear. Taken strictly, it could prohibit all interrogation. Interrogation is always degrading on some level, isn’t it?

US Reservations

The short version is that there are no specific reservations right now, but theoretically we could take some at any later date.

[crowmanyclouds]

@smiling bandit

…More to the point, the people which we are talking about right now are captured are, at best, guerrillas engaged in murder and insurrection against a sovereign government, which has a de facto alliance with the U.S. of A…

Soo everybody we have detained are guilty of something?

[lissener]

@What the .... ?!?!

However, one could take that argument to it’s extreme and then say that there is no point in doing any kind of interrogation. . . .

This is utterly ridiculous. The “slipper slope” analogy is actually very rarely applicable, and this is an example of where it’s absolutely irrelevant.

That’s like saying that you shouldn’t take iron pills because too much iron will kill you. “Taking an argument to its extreme” is usually nothing but an exercise in diversionary debate.

[Frostillicus]

@John Mace

Actually, McCain’s proposal is to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all government agencies. The problem with the debate is that anyone who disagrees is called “pro-torture”. And, until we know what Cheney specifically wants the CIA to be able to do that isn’t in the AFM, then it’s hard to know whether he’s right or not.

Too bad that Cheney has absolutely zero credibility on this issue. He is not a man I would trust with walking my dog, let alone determining the appropriate level of interrogation pressure that can be used (secretly, mind you) against terrorist suspects.

[Martin_Hyde]

I’m not sure why people say torture doesn’t work, torture definitely works at extracting the information you want, but it depends on external factors.

Firstly, torture is useless as a general exploratory tool. Anything a subject gives out during just “generalized” information seeking is worthless. Because most of it will be stuff you could never confirm.

Torture is also worthless when you’re asking about information that cannot be confirmed.

When can torture be useful? There’s several situations where it could be useful.

Let’s say you’re tracking members of a terrorist cell. You know these are members of a terrorist cell, but you don’t know exactly where in the city they are operating out of (let’s assume this is some random city.) You capture one of their members.

You know he’s in a terrorist cell, and knowing he’s in the cell you can safely assume he knows where the base of operations is. Simply ask him for the address. If he doesn’t give the information, ask him harder. “But he’ll just say anything to stop the torture, it won’t necessarily be true!?” Yes, but in this case it’s pretty easy to confirm when he’s lying, and you can make it much worse for him every time he lies. If he gives out a nonsense address, you’ll know he’s lying within a few minutes, it doesn’t take long to confirm if a given address actually EXISTS.

I can guarantee you this. If you capture someone in this condition, he KNOWS the address to the cell, he WILL give it up under torture. No human can withstand torture forever, and that’s what he’d be subjected to in this situation until he gave real intelligence, because it’s very easy to see when the subject is lying in this example.

Obviously the subject could still give out a real but incorrect address. But you certainly wouldn’t have to go breaking down the doors of every location he gives you to confirm or deny his truthfulness.

Anyways, the behavior of a terrorist cell proves the case, here. If one of their members gets captured they don’t hang around for long, they relocate. Because they know very well that once one of their members gets captured it is only a matter of time before this person gives them up (either trying to cut some kind of deal or trying to stop the pain from being inflicted upon him.)

Anyone read that case about the teen runaway that was captured, tortured, and raped by someone she thought was a “friend.” This “friend” then made her become a prostitute, working for him.

If torture and abuse can force a person to do something like THAT, do you honestly doubt it can’t force someone to give out information?

Again, though it has to be within the proper constraints. Basically when you KNOW that someone knows something, torture can be used successfully to get at the information. If you don’t know enough of the specifics already then your success rate with torture will probably be fairly low.

[Martin_Hyde]

Also I have to say any evidence by “experts” claiming torture doesn’t work always seem to be focused on the fact that subjects are just going to be spewing out information that’s unreliable, that you’ll never be able to tell if they’re lying to you etc. Most of the articles I’ve read all work on the assumption that the person being tortured isn’t being asked about highly specific, confirmable, information. But rather generalized information.

I understand the motivations of people that want to generally dismiss the idea that torture can work to get information.

However I personally feel that if you feel torture is morally wrong, then you should be opposed to it whether it works or not.

[John_Mace]

@Martin Hyde

However I personally feel that if you feel torture is morally wrong, then you should be opposed to it whether it works or not.

I agree, and have said as much in other threads. If a thief breaks into my house, threatening bodily harm to me (torture) unless I give him the combination to my safe, I’m going to give him that combination. I don’t buy the “torture doesn’t work” meme. Sure it does-- you just have to know how and when to use it.

Further, prehaps you don’t want the preson you’re detaining to know that you are forbiden to torture him. The threat of torture, or retaliation to his family might be enough to obtain some useful information.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I think Cheney really does want to use techniques that cross the line into torture. Even so, the whole subject is more complicated than many people are making it.

[GIGObuster]

@Martin Hyde

Also I have to say any evidence by “experts” claiming torture doesn’t work always seem to be focused on the fact that subjects are just going to be spewing out information that’s unreliable, that you’ll never be able to tell if they’re lying to you etc. Most of the articles I’ve read all work on the assumption that the person being tortured isn’t being asked about highly specific, confirmable, information. But rather generalized information.

I understand the motivations of people that want to generally dismiss the idea that torture can work to get information.

However I personally feel that if you feel torture is morally wrong, then you should be opposed to it whether it works or not.

let us see one great recent “success” from torture, at least for the Bush administration:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

A few months after September 11th, the U.S. gained custody of its first high-ranking Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. He had run bin Laden’s terrorist training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, and was detained in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in U.S. custody, and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, had both spent time at the Khalden camp. At the F.B.I.’s field office in New York, Jack Cloonan, an officer who had worked for the agency since 1972, struggled to maintain control of the legal process in Afghanistan. C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were vying to take possession of Libi. Cloonan, who worked with Dan Coleman on anti-terrorism cases for many years, said he felt that “neither the Moussaoui case nor the Reid case was a slam dunk.” He became intent on securing Libi’s testimony as a witness against them. He advised his F.B.I. colleagues in Afghanistan to question Libi respectfully, “and handle this like it was being done right here, in my office in New York.” He recalled, “I remember talking on a secure line to them. I told them, ‘Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.’ ”

Cloonan’s F.B.I. colleagues advised Libi of his rights and took turns with C.I.A. agents in questioning him. After a few days, F.B.I. officials felt that they were developing a good rapport with him. The C.I.A. agents, however, felt that he was lying to them, and needed tougher interrogation.

To Cloonan’s dismay, the C.I.A. reportedly rendered Libi to Egypt. He was seen boarding a plane in Afghanistan, restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his mouth covered by duct tape. Cloonan, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2002, said, “At least we got information in ways that wouldn’t shock the conscience of the court. And no one will have to seek revenge for what I did.” He added, “We need to show the world that we can lead, and not just by military might.”

After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.”

Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”

Yep, torture works. :smack:

[HPL]

@Marley23

Huh? I already agreed with that. Some people do seem to take the “ticking time bomb” hypothetical too seriously, though.

Well, if there’s a ticking time bomb, Keifer Sutherland can be brought in to find it.

That way, we’ll be absoutly sure that the people tortured deserve it, but also that the bomb will be found before it goes off, and everything will be wrapped up withen 24 hours.

[Zoe]

John Mace, how reliable would the information you provide be on the combination to your safe if for some reason only your wife knew the combination?