Is the torture of terrorism suspects an effective practice in the United States counter-terrorism efforts, or is it a myopic tool which ultimately hinders American national security?
If you believe that torture is a legitimate and necessary practice for the United States to collect invaluable intelligence to prevent future attacks on American soil, how do you reconcile this belief with the ethos of American democracy?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
If you believe that torture is a legitimate and necessary practice for the United States to collect invaluable intelligence to prevent future attacks on American soil, how do you reconcile this belief with the ethos of American democracy?[/quote]
I’d say the practice of torture occupies a proud place in the history of American democratic rule.
Water boarding “is almost universally held to” be effective “by scholars and practitioners of the discipline.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Water boarding “is almost universally held to” be effective “by scholars and practitioners of the discipline.”[/quote]
It’s true! Very effective for eliciting information of all kinds.
If you torture a man, he’ll tell you whatever you want to know.
Just ask Iggy Pop. They tortured him so hard he started confessing in French.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It’s true! Very effective for eliciting information of all kinds.
If you torture a man, he’ll tell you whatever you want to know.
Just ask Iggy Pop. They tortured him so hard he started confessing in French.[/quote]
That’s due to a simple misapplication of technique. For example, if some guys grabbed you and bashed you until you confessed your credit card PIN number you would be inclined to give them a false number. However, if you knew that they were going to test the number and then come back and inflict worse punishment if it was wrong then there’s a good chance you’d give them the real number.
Having said that, I’m not an expert on terrorism so I can’t say for sure how effective this technique is in that regard. But what I do know is that there’s a wealth of historical information available showing that torture is very effective at identifying witches. I think it could also be used very effectively at identifying racists, homophobes, transphobes and the like. In such cases I think the department of homeland security, the southern poverty law centre and the ACLU should have discretion.
Seriously though, anyone familiar with the operations of Gestapo, SD and Kripo should be aware that torture can be an effective means of gathering intelligence. For example see Walter Schellenberg’s memoir and the section on the Dutch resistance.
My opinion is similar to that of the former commander of JSOC and ISAF, General Stanley McChrystal. A must read interview in my opinion.
http://m.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/generation-kill
Gideon Rose: There’s a debate going on about the role of torture in American policy, what constitutes it and how important and necessary a tool it is in counterterrorism. What’s your take?
I teach a seminar at Yale on leadership, and in one of the classes, I decided to bring up the issue of torture to rouse their indignation at the idea. And more than half the class said, “Well, if you need to do it, it’s OK.” And I was shocked.
Stanley McChrystal: I’ve never been in a position where I had a detainee or prisoner who knew where a nuclear weapon in New York was and if I was able to get the information out of him in three hours I could save millions of people. So for me to say I would never torture anyone under those circumstances, I don’t think anyone can answer that question, particularly if my family was there or something.
That said, I think torture is an absolute mistake, and I made that clear within our organization. Whether or not torture works is an academic argument I don’t even want to be a part of, because at the end of the day, I think the torturers are weakened. They’re weakened internally individually, and they’re weakened strategically as a cause.The thing that hurt us more than anything else in the war in Iraq was Abu Ghraib. When the pictures came out in the spring of 2004, many Americans felt our government was being honest – that we had a problem with a platoon operating in the prison mistreating prisoners. The Iraqi people viewed it very differently. Many of them felt it was proof positive that the Americans were doing exactly what Saddam Hussein had done – that it was proof [that] everything they thought bad about the Americans was true.
Rose: So what we thought of as an exception, they thought of as the rule?
McChrystal: That’s right. They thought that was the broader reality. And there were hundreds of foreign fighters that came in [to Iraq] because they were responding to Abu Ghraib. Using torture is ultimately self-defeating. It’s morally wrong, and it’s a strategic mistake.
There’s torture and concepts of justice that I’m just barely starting to be critical of. Sort of re-realized after looking at that picture and considering the reality of our courts, justice system and precedent.
The thing I’m wondering about is the idea of going to other countries and applying American justice to such people. Really, think about that for a second… What would it be like for someone in another nation to come here and take our vets for trial in a foreign land? Make no mistake, I have no love for those who attacked our embassy and the sort of justice he should face is on a combat field.
What it looks like to us vs. others? We drag his ass thousands of miles to our land, where we have a case built and a huge fucking team of lawyers and judges along with millions of dollars spent to make sure it sticks?
The thing with torture is it works as long as the enemy doesn’t know how far you will go. If the enemy knows you will only go so far, or only use certain tactics then it means they are versed in counter interrogation techniques. It’s one thing to interrogate and threaten someone who is weak or without resolve. Another thing when you interrogate or torture someone already willing to die for a cause.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The thing I’m wondering about is the idea of going to other countries and applying American justice to such people. Really, think about that for a second… What would it be like for someone in another nation to come here and take our vets for trial in a foreign land? Make no mistake, I have no love for those who attacked our embassy and the sort of justice he should face is on a combat field.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? Terrorists are “vets” now? You’re complaining about putting terrorists on trial and comparing them to US vets? What planet are you on?
Do you know where the DoJ gets its prosecutors from? Holder went to all the law firms and got the lawyers who had defended gitmo terrorists and employed them in the prosecutors’ office. Do you know how insane that is? Do you know what a massive conflict of interest that is? It’s tantamount to employing mob lawyers in the organised crime division. There’re the people who are supposed to “make it stick.” And the terrorists get taxpayer funded defenders from the radical civil rights division of the justice department.
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s been a revolution going on. The Obama/Holder regime doesn’t want any of the charges to " stick." Don’t you realise the damage, the devastation that this administration is wrecking on all of you? They’re orchestrating a fucking invasion of the country. It was planned in advance. And now they’re desperately pushing for amnesty to deliver the fatal blow. Don’t believe me? Just watch what happens next. Obama is going to go after the second amendment next. Just wait and see.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Is the torture of terrorism suspects an effective practice in the United States counter-terrorism efforts, or is it a myopic tool which ultimately hinders American national security?
If you believe that torture is a legitimate and necessary practice for the United States to collect invaluable intelligence to prevent future attacks on American soil, how do you reconcile this belief with the ethos of American democracy?[/quote]
It is a myopic tool which ultimately hinders American national security.
It might be the other option if the men we were dealing with had no testicles
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What planet are you on?
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s been a revolution going on. The Obama/Holder regime doesn’t want any of the charges to " stick." Don’t you realise the damage, the devastation that this administration is wrecking on all of you? They’re orchestrating a fucking invasion of the country. It was planned in advance. And now they’re desperately pushing for amnesty to deliver the fatal blow. Don’t believe me? Just watch what happens next. Obama is going to go after the second amendment next. Just wait and see.
[/quote]
After you type something like this, but before you click submit; you should take a look into a mirror and ask yourself “What planet are you on”?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
My opinion is similar to that of the former commander of JSOC and ISAF, General Stanley McChrystal. A must read interview in my opinion.
http://m.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/generation-kill
Gideon Rose: There’s a debate going on about the role of torture in American policy, what constitutes it and how important and necessary a tool it is in counterterrorism. What’s your take?
I teach a seminar at Yale on leadership, and in one of the classes, I decided to bring up the issue of torture to rouse their indignation at the idea. And more than half the class said, “Well, if you need to do it, it’s OK.” And I was shocked.
Stanley McChrystal: I’ve never been in a position where I had a detainee or prisoner who knew where a nuclear weapon in New York was and if I was able to get the information out of him in three hours I could save millions of people. So for me to say I would never torture anyone under those circumstances, I don’t think anyone can answer that question, particularly if my family was there or something.
That said, I think torture is an absolute mistake, and I made that clear within our organization. Whether or not torture works is an academic argument I don’t even want to be a part of, because at the end of the day, I think the torturers are weakened. They’re weakened internally individually, and they’re weakened strategically as a cause.The thing that hurt us more than anything else in the war in Iraq was Abu Ghraib. When the pictures came out in the spring of 2004, many Americans felt our government was being honest – that we had a problem with a platoon operating in the prison mistreating prisoners. The Iraqi people viewed it very differently. Many of them felt it was proof positive that the Americans were doing exactly what Saddam Hussein had done – that it was proof [that] everything they thought bad about the Americans was true.
Rose: So what we thought of as an exception, they thought of as the rule?
McChrystal: That’s right. They thought that was the broader reality. And there were hundreds of foreign fighters that came in [to Iraq] because they were responding to Abu Ghraib. Using torture is ultimately self-defeating. It’s morally wrong, and it’s a strategic mistake.[/quote]
Bravo
When I was in my 20’s, I had the occasion to share a table and have a very in depth conversation with US Army Col. Stuart Herrington (RET) at the wedding of a mutual friend. Col. Herrington is a well respected author and an authority on intelligence, counter-intelligence and interrogation. Now this conversation took place well before 9/11, but it made quite an impact on me and my views on this topic.
Col. Herrington’s position is basically this: that torture doesn’t work. He was charged with interrogating MANY Vietnamese prisoners during that conflict and he saw some pretty horrific things. He also saw and had the opportunity to develop other tactics that didn’t involve physical coercion (as he put it). He says that for the purposes of intelligence, the information gleaned from torture is very unreliable - it’s completely hit or miss. However, a “rapport” based interrogation will yield far more consistent results AND produce more information.
We also discussed a few other aspects, such as that for purposes OTHER than intelligence gathering, it can be an effective tool in the toolbox in terms of psychological warfare on the enemy. And that the concept of “we wont torture them, so hopefully they won’t torture us” is bullshit - if an American soldier is captured, it is very likely they will be tortured regardless of our policy.
On the whole it was a very enlightening conversation and it made an impact on my views about torture. The “24” scenario where Jack Bauer has 30 minutes to find the bomb and save the day just isn’t reality. I personally don’t think I could torture someone just for information, nor do I support it. I could do it if they did something to my kids or someone I cared about, but that’s not the focus of this thread.
I am okay with the use of torture as a means of last resort only when the information needed is known to be of such value that the lack of acquiring that information would result in the drastic loss of civilians lives.
I think that if it is morally acceptable to kill someone to prevent them from illegally taking another’s life, it is morally acceptable to torture them to prevent the same thing. Obviously this does not mean I condone all forms of torture.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Is the torture of terrorism suspects an effective practice in the United States counter-terrorism efforts, or is it a myopic tool which ultimately hinders American national security?
If you believe that torture is a legitimate and necessary practice for the United States to collect invaluable intelligence to prevent future attacks on American soil, how do you reconcile this belief with the ethos of American democracy?[/quote]
I do think torture can be an effective tool for gaining intelligence. As for it being a legitimate and necessary practice I don’t think it can reconciled that way.
As for liking it, I don’t personally. I don’t want to torture anybody or cause anybody extreme pain. But then who are we talking about?
This is a contradiction that in someway, I think we have to live with.
The ethics are vastly complicated. You have to take into account what is at stake, gamble on who has the information you need, discern how much time you have, what are the consequences of inaction and the person you are dealing with and how evil they are or are not.
I mean do I have a problem with torturing people. Yes.
Do I have a problem with torturing a person like Callixte Mbarushimana, who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity? I cannot say it would bother me as much. In the end, I guess it just depends.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Is the torture of terrorism suspects an effective practice in the United States counter-terrorism efforts, or is it a myopic tool which ultimately hinders American national security?
If you believe that torture is a legitimate and necessary practice for the United States to collect invaluable intelligence to prevent future attacks on American soil, how do you reconcile this belief with the ethos of American democracy?[/quote]
I do think torture can be an effective tool for gaining intelligence. As for it being a legitimate and necessary practice I don’t think it can reconciled that way.
As for liking it, I don’t personally. I don’t want to torture anybody or cause anybody extreme pain. But then who are we talking about?
This is a contradiction that in someway, I think we have to live with.
The ethics are vastly complicated. You have to take into account what is at stake, gamble on who has the information you need, discern how much time you have, what are the consequences of inaction and the person you are dealing with and how evil they are or are not.
I mean do I have a problem with torturing people. Yes.
Do I have a problem with torturing a person like Callixte Mbarushimana, who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity? I cannot say it would bother me as much. In the end, I guess it just depends.[/quote]
No, it’s much simpler than that.
Does this person have information, or access to it, that I need, and if so, is torturing him the quickest and most effective way to get it?
According to most people who actually have this responsibility, torture apparently is not an effective means to this end.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The thing I’m wondering about is the idea of going to other countries and applying American justice to such people. Really, think about that for a second… What would it be like for someone in another nation to come here and take our vets for trial in a foreign land? Make no mistake, I have no love for those who attacked our embassy and the sort of justice he should face is on a combat field.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? Terrorists are “vets” now? You’re complaining about putting terrorists on trial and comparing them to US vets? What planet are you on?
Do you know where the DoJ gets its prosecutors from? Holder went to all the law firms and got the lawyers who had defended gitmo terrorists and employed them in the prosecutors’ office. Do you know how insane that is? Do you know what a massive conflict of interest that is? It’s tantamount to employing mob lawyers in the organised crime division. There’re the people who are supposed to “make it stick.” And the terrorists get taxpayer funded defenders from the radical civil rights division of the justice department.
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s been a revolution going on. The Obama/Holder regime doesn’t want any of the charges to " stick." Don’t you realise the damage, the devastation that this administration is wrecking on all of you? They’re orchestrating a fucking invasion of the country. It was planned in advance. And now they’re desperately pushing for amnesty to deliver the fatal blow. Don’t believe me? Just watch what happens next. Obama is going to go after the second amendment next. Just wait and see.
[/quote]
I’m saying we pretend to be bringing people to justice, but what the fuck are we really doing?
We have our own sense of what justice is here in the U.S. That we go into other countries, extract people and bring them here for trail that’s really a farce in the sense that we are just going through the motions of justice and a trial to appease Americans. It’s not going to strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, or change them.
Our goal is to kill the guy or lock him up and throw away the key. It’s a big fucking facade, a masturbation. We should have executed the fucker secretly and been done with it. But no, we bring him here so Obama can stick it in republicans faces. Then the fucking stupid trial…
They know what it is… They have trials for us and cut our fucking heads off. We go through these bullshit facades to appease some fake superior sense of justice? Who are we kidding?
Don’t mistake my critique for a lack of animosity towards the enemy. I’d kill the fucker myself.
Ask KSM.
As for the ticking time bomb scenario, hard cases make for bad laws and all that.
If a man knew where a nuclear device was hidden in Manhattan and it was ready to go off, I would be willing personally to take a cattle prod to his balls, but I would expect to be put on trial and sentenced afterwards.
If there is one thing I am sure of is that government grows like a cancer whenever it can.
Once torture is introduced as a legitimate tool of government it will not be confined to terrorists, it will not be confined to the most severe cases, it will not be confined period.
Torture simply has no place in a free society, it attacks the very core values of a free society.
