Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well-reasoned and articulate response, Chuck.

I apologize for responding to one of your arguments with a more general response to the “ticking time bomb” argument and stating that “you” were making that argument. In that case I was indeed lumping you in with a larger group of people who advocate for torture, and I knew that particular point was questionable when I made it.

That said, I do believe that all of my other arguments were specific responses to what YOU wrote.

I linked to websites as sources and background info for my arguments. I’m not using them as talking points. I’m giving you my personal opinions and beliefs, and I’m linking to evidence to support them.

I linked to expert opinions (Col. Herrington, Malcolm Nance), eyewitness details (the Washington Post article about Tony Lagouranis and other interrogators), summaries of written laws (the Human Rights Watch summary of what laws/statutes/treaties actually forbid torture) and military policies (the Army counterinsurgency manual) on the subject, and several articles reporting on military documentation of actual abuses and deaths of prisoners in custody. Real people, not hypothetical “terrorists.” Real people our guys tortured and killed.

dienekes96 wrote:It's not defined very well. That said, the law/treaties as written must be adhered to. I never said or implied otherwise. Please respond to my point (if you choose to respond, that is)...not approved website talking points that out words in my mouth.

Have you read the laws in question? I didn’t think we were going to go into a line by line reading. I think the quotes on the Human Rights Watch page I linked to are reasonably clear. That page actually links to copies of the documents (the UCMJ, War Crimes Act of 1996, the US federal anti-torture statute, and the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000)

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

In the research I’ve done I haven’t yet seen the legal exception for SERE training, but I think there is one. If there isn’t then that’s a problem which should certainly be addressed.

dienekes96 wrote:And we never had any arguments about the term "cruel and inhuman punishment" in the courts of law, have we? Define excessive. Define authority. Define degrading.

I quoted the Army training manual for counterinsurgency. The section I quoted refers you to Appendix D of the manual for more details about the legal issues. I also posted a link to a PDF of the entire manual. If you follow the link, you can read Appendix D. It refers to specific laws.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

dienekes96 wrote:I served in the military, attended a United States service academy, and even I know war is ALWAYS morally wrong. If the question were that easy (just do what is moral), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sometimes you have to judge between two moral wrongs. That's why specific definitions are so important.

Back to your argument: what defines your morals? What is their basis? I highly doubt your morals are exactly my morals, so until we can come to some agreement, we are in a pickle, aren't we?

We’re in agreement here, that war and violence are inherently wrong but sometimes necessary and justifiable. And as you say, our moralities may vary. However, there are some points of morality and ethics which are reasonably universal. Laws are by their nature ways to enforce or discourage certain types of behavior that societies feel the need to regulate. Torture is condemned and forbidden by our nation and by the other countries which subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to other international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

I think that it’s not going to far to say that civilized nations and people generally agree that torture is an evil that cannot be justified in the same way that war is acknowledge to sometimes be necessary.

dienekes96 wrote:I am pointing out that those of us in our first world countries have the leisure of debating these points like this...in peace, and utterly safe. When considering defining those terms and assessing what should and should not be right, we should judge the danger to the men in the field, not the affront to my (or your) personal morals. Neither you or I have earned the conviction or the moral high horse unless our well-being has been challenged and our morals still found resolute.

Lastly, part of this is me arguing to argue. But my clinical analysis stands. You paint the world in black and white from a position of complete safety, just as I argue for some level of duress in questioning without having to risk experiencing that duress or loss of humanity in the application. So I absolutely recognize my hypocrisy.

Your Teddy quote’s a great one.

My father was working at the Pentagon at the time it was hit. That same day my then-SO lost a brother in the towers. I drove her down to Scarsdale to his house where their family was gathering, at the home he shared with his wife and two young sons. I don’t mean to be melodramatic, or to claim I have a more direct stake or personal interest than you do. Just to note that none of us are entirely safe. At this point most of us know someone (or more than one) who’s in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I know my language has been somewhat strong and often absolutist. That’s because I feel very strongly about this subject. I think our public discourse lately, in the media and most frighteningly in the Republican presidential debates, has been appallingly open to the concept of torture in recent years, and it’s dangerous. I think that people need to stand up and say that it’s wrong. McCain at least said so in that debate.

I’m not trying to say that we should spurn the practice of torture just because I find it distasteful and repugnant, but because there are good evidence from history (the French experience in Algiers is a classic case) and from real experts in the field, that it’s not very reliable useful, and that it has significant downsides. Specifically that allowing it even in limited cases inevitably propagates and spreads to become common practice, that it degrades our own personnel both in morale and in performance, that it provides our opponents with moral ammunition and justification for their own wrongdoing, and gives the undecided people reason to side against us. Disclosure- I’m cribbing from Generals Krulak and Hoar here.

dienekes96 wrote:Now with regards to reliability, that is a different matter. Hypothetically, if actions defined as torture yielded actionable and life-saving information, under what circumstances would you employ them? Never? When it was one life? Ten lives? What probability of actionable life-saving data would you need to even consider it reliable? 50%? 75%? 99%?

I am more concerned about the reliability of the results, because that is concrete, unlike our much squishier moral debates. And I tend to agree. Any sort of acceptable duress questioning is unlikely to yield reliable or useful results. And under no realistic circumstances would I will be willing to devolve into potentially lethal or significantly hazardous questioning - any situations where those would be considered have more varaiables than could be reasonably assumed.

I’m happy to engage in a debate on the practical merits of torture itself, but what could I say that Herrington, Nance, and the Army’s own field manual have not already said, from positions of direct authority and expertise? I linked to their statements in part because they cover the details better than I ever could. If you only read one of the pages I’ve linked to, I suggest it be this one:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

In short, there appears to be an established body of data and expert analysis showing that torture is not generally effective or reliable, and that more humane techniques achieve results.

Our military has historically been held and held themselves to a very high standard of conduct in regards to interrogation, and has developed a body of knowledge and expertise on how to do it effectively without resorting to brutality and inhumanity. Brutality loses us the moral high ground we desperately need to win the most important battle, of hearts, minds, and ideologies.

And it seems that since 2001 people considerably less experienced and qualified (including George Tenet, Rumsfeld, and others) have been ignoring that existing evidence, perhaps out of desperation and/or ignorance, in favor of brutal techniques that degrade us as a nation and are not even effective.

Mannahnin wrote:I apologize for responding to one of your arguments with a more general response to the “ticking time bomb” argument and stating that “you” were making that argument. In that case I was indeed lumping you in with a larger group of people who advocate for torture, and I knew that particular point was questionable when I made it.

No worries. I had to refute it or it would become accepted by those simply reading this debate, not involved in it.

Mannahnin wrote:That said, I do believe that all of my other arguments were specific responses to what YOU wrote.

I didn't go to websites you linked, because I never do that. The pedigree and value of websites is debatable at best (and specious at worst); I did read everything you quoted, and I did go to the smallwars link you list below, and I'll respond to that one there.

Mannahnin wrote:I linked to websites as sources and background info for my arguments. I’m not using them as talking points. I’m giving you my personal opinions and beliefs, and I’m linking to evidence to support them.

Fair enough, but I am more interested in the philosophical arguments, so I've avoided other quotes (except in my Teddy instance).

Mannahnin wrote:I linked to expert opinions (Col. Herrington, Malcolm Nance), eyewitness details (the Washington Post article about Tony Lagouranis and other interrogators), summaries of written laws (the Human Rights Watch summary of what laws/statutes/treaties actually forbid torture) and military policies (the Army counterinsurgency manual) on the subject, and several articles reporting on military documentation of actual abuses and deaths of prisoners in custody. Real people, not hypothetical “terrorists.” Real people our guys tortured and killed.

To be fair, I could also link to expert opinions that disagree, and then it's my experts and your experts. And frankly, I like your experts better (for the most part), so I wanted to focus on the generalities, not the details, except as the words/laws are specifically defined. Because that is the realm where the debate happens. Asking "should we torture?" is like asking "why do you beat your wife?" We should never* torture, because it is anathema to our core values. That is where the question of "what is torture" is paramount. You have to define it to know where the line is.

*You know this is coming. Never say never, but I have trouble determining when you cross that line, for what information, to who do you apply the torture, who authorizes it, and who performs it. Only if the life of my son was threatened do I believe I could willfully apply pain to someone for information and not recoil. I'm too empathic.

Mannahnin wrote:Have you read the laws in question? I didn’t think we were going to go into a line by line reading. I think the quotes on the Human Rights Watch page I linked to are reasonably clear. That page actually links to copies of the documents (the UCMJ, War Crimes Act of 1996, the US federal anti-torture statute, and the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000)

In the research I’ve done I haven’t yet seen the legal exception for SERE training, but I think there is one. If there isn’t then that’s a problem which should certainly be addressed.

I'm sure there is a legal basis as well, and I'll discuss that down below. And we don't need a line by line reading, but I keep seeing torture defined as torture, or described in generalities. What I would consider degrading is different than what others would consider degrading.

I agree there are universal consistent moral beliefs, so I'd posit duress questioning should proceed in levels, with the maximum level still ensuring no possibility of death or mutilation. I'm less inclined to worry about someone's feelings. Would I be willing to LIE to someone to get results? Yup. Policemen do it all the time. Psychological threats and games, designed to loosen tongues. Would I be willing to threaten someone's family (presumed innocent)? Maybe. That's a bluff, of course. But would that be considered torture? Some would say yes, some would say no. Putting a gun to someone's head (now we are really getting into it)? That enters a direct threat, which is well past the implied threat of earlier coercion, and where the argument gets bloody. I don't have the training or data to refute or accept any of those methods. Notice none have physically touched the suspect.

Mannahnin wrote:I quoted the Army training manual for counterinsurgency. The section I quoted refers you to Appendix D of the manual for more details about the legal issues. I also posted a link to a PDF of the entire manual. If you follow the link, you can read Appendix D. It refers to specific laws.

12 meg. I'll take your word it has specifics. Take mine that you should never let the ARMY be the last word on anything

Mannahnin wrote:We’re in agreement here, that war and violence are inherently wrong but sometimes necessary and justifiable. And as you say, our moralities may vary. However, there are some points of morality and ethics which are reasonably universal. Laws are by their nature ways to enforce or discourage certain types of behavior that societies feel the need to regulate. Torture is condemned and forbidden by our nation and by the other countries which subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to other international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

This'll just be a pet peeve, but world events lead me to believe the UN is completely worthless. K-Mart has more power than the UN. Geneva is a different story.

Mannahnin wrote:I think that it’s not going to far to say that civilized nations and people generally agree that torture is an evil that cannot be justified in the same way that war is acknowledge to sometimes be necessary.

To which I wholeheartedly agree, once we delineate what is and isn't torture.

Mannahnin wrote:Your Teddy quote’s a great one.

My father was working at the Pentagon at the time it was hit. That same day my then-SO lost a brother in the towers. I drove her down to Scarsdale to his house where their family was gathering, at the home he shared with his wife and two young sons. I don’t mean to be melodramatic, or to claim I have a more direct stake or personal interest than you do. Just to note that none of us are entirely safe. At this point most of us know someone (or more than one) who’s in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yes, but some of us are a LOT more safe than others right now. What happened on 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. We are all at risk for crime, but most of us are not at risk for war. It sounds semantic, I know, but the point remains. Our risk levels are all higher now than they were pre-9/11...but that doesn't make them equal. Those who carry the most risk should have the most input into decisions affected that level of risk.

Mannahnin wrote:I know my language has been somewhat strong and often absolutist. That’s because I feel very strongly about this subject. I think our public discourse lately, in the media and most frighteningly in the Republican presidential debates, has been appallingly open to the concept of torture in recent years, and it’s dangerous. I think that people need to stand up and say that it’s wrong. McCain at least said so in that debate.

That's because McCain is speaking from direct experience, something no other politician can claim, so I first look to him for political leadership on it.

Mannahnin wrote:I’m not trying to say that we should spurn the practice of torture just because I find it distasteful and repugnant, but because there are good evidence from history (the French experience in Algiers is a classic case) and from real experts in the field, that it’s not very reliable useful, and that it has significant downsides. Specifically that allowing it even in limited cases inevitably propagates and spreads to become common practice, that it degrades our own personnel both in morale and in performance, that it provides our opponents with moral ammunition and justification for their own wrongdoing, and gives the undecided people reason to side against us. Disclosure- I’m cribbing from Generals Krulak and Hoar here.

I concur completely. Duress questioning of any sort should NEVER be done by military personnel or without major oversight.

Mannahnin wrote:I’m happy to engage in a debate on the practical merits of torture itself, but what could I say that Herrington, Nance, and the Army’s own field manual have not already said, from positions of direct authority and expertise? I linked to their statements in part because they cover the details better than I ever could. If you only read one of the pages I’ve linked to, I suggest it be this one:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

In short, there appears to be an established body of data and expert analysis showing that torture is not generally effective or reliable, and that more humane techniques achieve results.

I do believe we'd find some data supporting both sides, but I believe the expeerts you sighted more than those on the opposite spectrum.

I did read that bit, and I found it mostly well-thought out and compelling, with some minor exceptions.

1) The nations we fight aren't those that would subscribe to the conventions in the first place. I'd argue vehemently that US culpability in torture cases has zero bearing on an adversary's decision to use it. I have no doubt they'd claim it did (as they play the PR war far more effectively than we do, sadly). They would do it regardless, and simply claim not to. I do not believe our soldiers are at any more risk now from our current enemy (or any potential realistic future adversary) than they were before. The real issue is in that PR war - and it degrades and weakens our position severely to stoop to torture.

2) But I am back to defining it. The author clearly indicates that his version of waterboarding is slight and controlled and supervised and professional. Should not all duress questioning be controlled, supervised, and professional? I'm back to my "what is acceptable?" because I used waterboarding merely to entertain the thought that some questionable things might be acceptable if the payoff is worth it. Some things never would be, I readily admit. Some I bet we'd argue about some things as well. I want the experts to make those determinations, not a cabal of politicians, pundits, lawyers, and internet experts.

Mannahnin wrote:Our military has historically been held and held themselves to a very high standard of conduct in regards to interrogation, and has developed a body of knowledge and expertise on how to do it effectively without resorting to brutality and inhumanity. Brutality loses us the moral high ground we desperately need to win the most important battle, of hearts, minds, and ideologies.

As I stated before, and as I have always believed, duress questioning should not be the province of the military, but of intelligence and psychological professionals. The military must always, ALWAYS, have the high ground.

Mannahnin wrote:And it seems that since 2001 people considerably less experienced and qualified (including George Tenet, Rumsfeld, and others) have been ignoring that existing evidence, perhaps out of desperation and/or ignorance, in favor of brutal techniques that degrade us as a nation and are not even effective.

Sure, but my biggest concern is that they aren't effective It is risk versus reward, not what is right. I agree we need moral standing, and I think the debate has sunk, but I worry the pendulum will swing too far the other way, as that has been the long and very sad history of such public debates. In peacetime, it's an easy, legal discussion. With soldiers on the ground, it's a much less black and white issue. If it swings too far the other way, I worry we may lose techniques that aren't torture that do yield decent info.

[Moderator deletion of a quote of Dieneke96' entire last post]


This is a huge quote, someone just admit torture is evil.

Sure, torture is evil...now read the discussion.

The reason I ask if we know torture doesn't work is becuase I was wondering if that is conventional wisdom or if there were studies to back it up. It seems like there is some evidence to say that it does not work.

This leads to the question though that if it never works why is it still used, only under the most dire of circumstances I'm sure. :S

Ahtman wrote:The reason I ask if we know torture doesn't work is becuase I was wondering if that is conventional wisdom or if there were studies to back it up. It seems like there is some evidence to say that it does not work.

This leads to the question though that if it never works why is it still used, only under the most dire of circumstances I'm sure. :S

Depends on what you define as "works". If you want reliable evidence of any sort... no it fails the test. People will say whatever thier captor wants to hear. The best way to hear about plots and threats of the wildest imaginings is to torture someone. For every fact you get you'll get 100 lies told to try and give you what you want. And the great thing about this is whe you round up other poeple who the first has sold out in an effort to end his misery, they'll confirm everything as you torture them. Thet's what makes torture worthless. The victim will give you exactly what you want to hear.

It's still used because the people who support it are thugs. The thugs know what answers they want, and torture gives that answer ineviatably. It may take time but torture is the only method known where you can be sure of a confession for whatever you want. Violence porn like 24 encourages this belief that the person will tell the truth. That is not the case. They may tell you the truth, but in a time sensitive case your more likely to get a lie, or something you'll believe to be true.

The other side to this is that it encourages the torturer to be an animal.

edit: added bolded text.

Ahtman wrote:The reason I ask if we know torture doesn't work is becuase I was wondering if that is conventional wisdom or if there were studies to back it up. It seems like there is some evidence to say that it does not work.

Quick answer, read the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm

Ahtman wrote:This leads to the question though that if it never works why is it still used, only under the most dire of circumstances I'm sure. :S

It HADN'T been used for years. It's been known to be counterproductive going back at least to the sixties. Ref. the Army Vietnam-era Intelligence Interrogation field manual FM 30-15, put out in 1969.

Chickenhawks with no military or intelligence experience like Rumsfeld, who believe in Hollywood BS like '24', have in the last few years decided that if we just "take the gloves off", we'll magically start getting better information. With complete disregard to the actual flaws of this approach and its horrid consequences on the people involved and on our long term strategic success in the battle of ideologies.

dienekes96 wrote:No worries. I had to refute it or it would become accepted by those simply reading this debate, not involved in it.

And I hope you understand why I felt like I had to make the point, since IMO at least one other person in this thread has been espousing the Jack Bauer school of thought.

dienekes96 wrote: didn't go to websites you linked, because I never do that. The pedigree and value of websites is debatable at best (and specious at worst); I did read everything you quoted, and I did go to the smallwars link you list below, and I'll respond to that one there.

Websites are just a medium for the communication of information. What matters is the quality of the information and the credibility of the people writing/posting it. When I read your posts on the hobby/gaming business, and compare them to posts by other people, I can apply critical analysis and see that you know what the hell you’re talking about, and a lot of other people don’t.

I encourage you not to dismiss links out of hand. Take a glance at the sites and see what’s there. Several of the links I posted were to articles from major newspapers, written by people who are genuine experts. The page on Human Rights Watch is really well done; a clear and cogent summary with direct quotes and links to all the referenced documents. Far superior to most of what you get online.

Here’s a link to the article by Generals Krulak and Hoar that I mentioned:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html

dienekes96 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I quoted the Army training manual for counterinsurgency. The section I quoted refers you to Appendix D of the manual for more details about the legal issues. I also posted a link to a PDF of the entire manual. If you follow the link, you can read Appendix D. It refers to specific laws.

12 meg. I'll take your word it has specifics. Take mine that you should never let the ARMY be the last word on anything

So which branch were you in? My dad was Army, and both my grandfathers were Air Force.

I haven’t read the whole manual, though I’m thinking about it. It’s pretty impressive. It’s the new (Dec 06) primary handbook (army field manual, Marine Corps warfighting publication) on counterinsurgency for the Army and Marines. Signed off on by General Petraeus for the Army and General Amos for the Marines.

dienekes96 wrote:This'll just be a pet peeve, but world events lead me to believe the UN is completely worthless. K-Mart has more power than the UN. Geneva is a different story.

Got an alternative? The UN has serious problems, but the core concept of getting everyone to sit at the table and talk stuff out is (IMO) an absolute necessity. Anyway, my main point is that we and a lot of other countries have agreed on some things, and one of them is that torture is not acceptable.

dienekes96 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don’t mean to be melodramatic, or to claim I have a more direct stake or personal interest than you do. Just to note that none of us are entirely safe. At this point most of us know someone (or more than one) who’s in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yes, but some of us are a LOT more safe than others right now. What happened on 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. We are all at risk for crime, but most of us are not at risk for war. It sounds semantic, I know, but the point remains. Our risk levels are all higher now than they were pre-9/11...but that doesn't make them equal. Those who carry the most risk should have the most input into decisions affected that level of risk.

I don’t think you’re suggesting that the soldiers on the ground are best qualified to make these decisions. The guys who are on the ground are not in a good position to make complex moral judgments when they’re under fire or otherwise under combat stress. They need clear and consistent policies handed down from above. When they’re told that some “rough stuff” is okay, we get stuff like Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Interrogations obviously need to be conducted by trained specialists under careful oversight. Personally I trust the Army and the Marines more than I trust the CIA.

dienekes96 wrote:[1) The nations we fight aren't those that would subscribe to the conventions in the first place. I'd argue vehemently that US culpability in torture cases has zero bearing on an adversary's decision to use it. I have no doubt they'd claim it did (as they play the PR war far more effectively than we do, sadly). They would do it regardless, and simply claim not to. I do not believe our soldiers are at any more risk now from our current enemy (or any potential realistic future adversary) than they were before. The real issue is in that PR war - and it degrades and weakens our position severely to stoop to torture.

If they’re winning the PR war, we’re fighting it badly. How do we fight it better? One key way is by actually HOLDING the moral high ground. If we’re hypocrites, why should people believe us and join our side?

Who’s to say that the nations we fight, or citizens from them, aren’t ones who would subscribe to the Geneva Conventions? There are plenty of people in the Middle East who are not violently opposed to us. A coworker of mine visited Oman and Egypt two months before we invaded Iraq. The people he talked with certainly didn’t hate America, but they were strongly opposed to our policies in regards to Israel and Iraq. Israel’s its own sticky subject, but there are a lot of people in the Middle East who are NOT our enemies but certainly could be if we continue to invade countries which aren’t threats to us, killing tens or hundreds of thousands of their citizens, and torturing and degrading many others.

The entire point of our clash with radical Islamists is the competition between our ideologies. We like to think we represent progress, modernism, prosperity, equality, freedom and justice. But when we humiliate, torture, and beat people to death, our claims appear false and we lose the moral superiority to the Imams.

dienekes96 wrote:2) But I am back to defining it. The author clearly indicates that his version of waterboarding is slight and controlled and supervised and professional. Should not all duress questioning be controlled, supervised, and professional?

Malcolm Nance makes the point that even in a controlled, supervised, professional application of waterboarding to a willing trainee, it’s still a brutal and inhumane thing. The person is literally being drowned. How bad is it if you don’t know that these people aren’t actually going to kill you?

dienekes96 wrote:As I stated before, and as I have always believed, duress questioning should not be the province of the military, but of intelligence and psychological professionals. The military must always, ALWAYS, have the high ground.

Can we define “duress questioning”?

According to (at least some) military intelligence professionals, they have working techniques which allow them to retain the moral high ground.

If I can beg you to read another article, Col. Herrington’s piece in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette describes the techniques he used and advocates, which are essentially a systematic interviewing and recruiting process, in which the prisoner is convinced to cooperate without any physical duress.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm

dienekes96 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:And it seems that since 2001 people considerably less experienced and qualified (including George Tenet, Rumsfeld, and others) have been ignoring that existing evidence, perhaps out of desperation and/or ignorance, in favor of brutal techniques that degrade us as a nation and are not even effective.

Sure, but my biggest concern is that they aren't effective It is risk versus reward, not what is right. I agree we need moral standing, and I think the debate has sunk, but I worry the pendulum will swing too far the other way, as that has been the long and very sad history of such public debates. In peacetime, it's an easy, legal discussion. With soldiers on the ground, it's a much less black and white issue. If it swings too far the other way, I worry we may lose techniques that aren't torture that do yield decent info.

My biggest concern is that not only are they tactically (short term) unreliable, that they are strategically (long term) extremely counterproductive. The long term battle is the ideological war. Convincing people who don’t like or trust us that we really are decent human beings very much like them, and that they should engage in economic and cultural exchange with us, to our mutual benefit.

Iran is one of the critical countries we’re dealing with now. Iran had massive pro-US demonstrations on 9/11. Ideologically they’re closer to us than the Saudis are. Look at stuff like Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis (the graphic novel or the upcoming animated film version). Our current administration is pushing towards another unconscionable military “solution”, when what we really need to be doing is talking and trading with one another.

There’s a great new article by Thomas Friedman that I’m going to post in a new thread, as it’s wandering off the topic.

I would have to define torture to define duress questioning. I was a Navy guy (submarines). But I know this...when in doubt about the military, trust the Marines. They get very little wrong, and very much right.

And I also trust the military more than the CIA. But I wish I trusted them just as much.

I have no proof of this, but I imagine American agents did use some questionable techniques during the Cold War. I don't think Jack Bauer drove military policies to Abu Ghraib. I guarantee you at some point, some amount of physical pain (or the threat thereof) has worked at getting information. It depends on the situation and the interviewee. At Annapolis, I learned that different leadership techniques achieved very different results, depending on the person they were exercised on. We aren't all the same, and we respond to stimuli in vastly different ways. At some level, torture has worked in the past. That is not an argument for it, mind you, just recognition of some ugly truths. That's why you need trained professionals - they need to determine what works (if anything) on a given subject. Like I said, I believe in the olive branch. Or misdirection.

Interesting thing about Iran...the Imams hate us, but the people are very (for a Muslim country) different. I recognize the dangerous ground we are on with Iran. And I absolutely recognize the many complex Saudi issues. Our current administration is lame duck, and they won't do anything foreign policy wise. The only Republican with a shot at winning is McCain, and he's hardly about to enter another war. He has unpopular opinions on this war, but he's honest and direct (and I trust him as much as you can trust a old politician). Neither Clinton nor Obama are interested in pursuing Iran. The Congress would never support it anyway. Even if a nutball like "Easy to change the Constitution" Huckabee is elected.

I agree our current world conflict is an ideological war in the long-term. But in the short term, we have citizens on the front line. I am not arguing they should make the decisions...but people who have ONCE been on *a* front line should be a part of the solution - senior military leadership, like GEN Krulak or Petraeus, as you keep mentioning. And the discussion should focus on what provides for their safety first and foremost. The rest of your analysis was spot-on. On the ground, they just need to know their mission, and who they can and can't shoot (and when and why). Asking any more of them is illogical.

Regarding American perspective: I don't believe it's "We like to think we represent progress, modernism, prosperity, equality, freedom and justice." We absolutely do. The world and the notion of human rights VASTLY changed starting in 1776. There is a lot of awful things America (and frankly, any country) have to answer for, but give credit where it is due. Abu Ghraib was discovered and halted (though the punishments stopped at a middle enlisted level - that is a ****ing crime). We are hardly the current light of the future, but we are still the biggest. So again, I agree with your point (about the symbolic importance), but a terrible administrative policy is hardly the end of the American Dream.

As for the UN...without teeth, it worse than worthless to me. Rwanda, Burma, Somalia - the UN does almost nothing about these, and neither do we. Their impose worthless sanctions. If Team America got one thing right, it was their scathing comment on the UN. Is it better than nothing? I suppose, but it doesn't have many wins at this point. the UN should be focused on saving lives...not talking about saving lives. Like I said...pet peeve.

I know that's fairly random responses, but it'll have to do tonight.

Interesting thread.
A bit of a drive by posting from me on a couple of posts that caught my eye:
-Nuke every square inch of ground with a terrorist in it? Aw man, do you wanna wipe out Ireland so bad?
-UN: Perhaps the UN would be a more formidable force if the US didn't make such a big show of ignoring it, refusing to pay dues, refusing to obey directives, and generally acting like a rogue state. International Law is like domestic law: It's good because it works almost all of the time. Those examples are points where it stopped working, but it does a good job in most places.
Anyway, continue!

Da Boss wrote:
-UN: Perhaps the UN would be a more formidable force if the US didn't make such a big show of ignoring it, refusing to pay dues, refusing to obey directives, and generally acting like a rogue state. International Law is like domestic law: It's good because it works almost all of the time. Those examples are points where it stopped working, but it does a good job in most places.
Anyway, continue!

Please cite when the UN did anything productive. The largest financial and bribery scandals in the history of the world. Massive bureacracies spending vast amounts of money instead of sending them on to aid poorer nations. non-existent controls and an interesting habit of singling out the US and Israel in their "human rights" organizations wihile ignoring atrocities, well, pretty much everywhere else.

jfrazell: I'll be back online later and I'll endevour to meet that request.
If I fail, consider me silenced on the issue.

dienekes96 wrote:I would have to define torture to define duress questioning.

I think there are formal definitions in military and intelligence publications/field manuals. “Duress questioning” might be that kind of terminology; either that or a legal euphemism. Col. Herrington seems to express very strongly that any form of torment or mistreatment is basically unnecessary. That he got very good results treating his subjects with dignity and respect. The three examples he lists at the end of his article are pretty impressive.

dienekes96 wrote:And I also trust the military more than the CIA. But I wish I trusted them just as much.

100% agreed.

dienekes96 wrote:I have no proof of this, but I imagine American agents did use some questionable techniques during the Cold War.

I expect that a number of morally dubious tactics were tried during the Cold War. Whether through deliberate policy or (at least as likely) through agents with insufficient oversight or restraint trying to “get creative” (to quote Lagouranis again). But going back at least to the sixties our military was aware that physical torment and maltreatment of prisoners was counterproductive in getting useful intelligence out of them.

dienekes96 wrote:I don't think Jack Bauer drove military policies to Abu Ghraib.

And naturally I don’t think Joel Surnow can take credit or blame for the reasoning and leadership failures which led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and elsewhere. But his TV series is obviously a substantial cultural influence constantly keeping the virtually nonexistent ticking time bomb scenario at the forefront of our public consciousness. It’s no coincidence that the concept seems to have first appeared in Jean Lartéguy’s novel Les Centurions, written during the French occupation of Algeria. Huh. Funny thing. Algeria again. Les Centurions gave a palatable rationale for the brutal tactics being used in Algeria, rationalizing them through fear.

At any rate, responsibility for the crimes and abuses at Abu Ghraib and Bagram has been placed on the grunts on the field who did most of the hitting and killing. Lr Col. Jordan, the only officer charged, was just cleared with nothing but an administrative reprimand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7182743.stm

One of the biggest failures of the response to the torture, mistreatment, and deaths is that none of the people who made the policies and gave the orders have been punished. The soldiers on the ground tortured and killed people, but they did so because their officers gave them instructions and orders that encouraged it (like the MPs being told to “soften up” prisoners for the CIA interrogators), and because said officers completely failed in their responsibility to step in and stop the abuses once they started (*note: I noticed that you posted below that you’re also outraged by this; again we’re in agreement). It’s not just a couple of isolated incidents of psychos in uniform beating people because they get off on it. It’s a widespread pattern of word being handed down from above that our guys could and should start abusing prisoners. The story of what happened at Bagram in Afghanistan is similar to Abu Ghraib, but with fewer photos and more deaths.

You can trace it at least all the way back to Rumsfeld. He and the CIA proactively asked the justice department under what circumstances they could justify torture, or at least stretch and redefine the boundaries on “aggressive treatment” of prisoners.

Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post wrote: In the 2002 memo, written for the CIA and addressed to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice Department defined torture in a much narrower way, for example, than does the U.S. Army, which has historically carried out most wartime interrogations.
In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html


Quick side note on the subject of outsourcing torture- a story just came out that the Canadian military stopped handing prisoners over to the Afghan government in November, after Canadian monitors found evidence of abuse and torture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/americas/24canada.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

We are clearly responsibly for what happens to the prisoners we turn over to the Afghans and the Uzbeks. We’re morally culpable, and everyone (except possibly some ethically and morally crippled folks working for Bush) knows it.

dienekes96 wrote:At some level, torture has worked in the past. That is not an argument for it, mind you, just recognition of some ugly truths.

I’m reluctant to accept this as a truism. Do we know when it has actually worked? Can we find real world examples in which this was really the only means available, and where it actually saved people?

dienekes96 wrote:That's why you need trained professionals - they need to determine what works (if anything) on a given subject. Like I said, I believe in the olive branch. Or misdirection.

Col. Herrington’s absolutely clear that you have to use what you know about the subject. Every worthwhile interrogation is its own entity, carefully crafted to the person being interrogated, and using other outside information to corroborate and better manipulate the subject.

dienekes96 wrote:I agree our current world conflict is an ideological war in the long-term. But in the short term, we have citizens on the front line. I am not arguing they should make the decisions...but people who have ONCE been on *a* front line should be a part of the solution - senior military leadership, like GEN Krulak or Petraeus, as you keep mentioning. And the discussion should focus on what provides for their safety first and foremost. The rest of your analysis was spot-on. On the ground, they just need to know their mission, and who they can and can't shoot (and when and why). Asking any more of them is illogical.

I think we’re almost completely in agreement, then.

dienekes96 wrote:Regarding American perspective: I don't believe it's "We like to think we represent progress, modernism, prosperity, equality, freedom and justice." We absolutely do. The world and the notion of human rights VASTLY changed starting in 1776. There is a lot of awful things America (and frankly, any country) have to answer for, but give credit where it is due. Abu Ghraib was discovered and halted (though the punishments stopped at a middle enlisted level - that is a ****ing crime). We are hardly the current light of the future, but we are still the biggest. So again, I agree with your point (about the symbolic importance), but a terrible administrative policy is hardly the end of the American Dream.

I’m certainly not saying that it is. I love my country. I love the principles it was founded on. The concepts embodied in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are amazing and wonderful things, especially in the context of the times. The fact that we took a long time actually implementing some of them (like equal rights for women and minorities) doesn’t tarnish the beauty of those ideas.

When I said “we like to think we represent”, I was referring more to what we represent to the world outside us. Do other countries see America as synonymous with progress, modernism, prosperity, equality, freedom, and justice? Or do they see us more as an embodiment of greed, conspicuous consumption, the willingness to use our dominant military muscle to influence foreign policy, and idealistic language about care for the environment and human rights which are contradicted by our actual conduct when our self interest is involved?

I think it’s both.

I met a number of legal immigrants (and a few illegal ones) in the years before my wife (who’s Bulgarian) and I got married in 2004; mostly people she lived or worked with, or coworkers of her housemates. I’ve met and talked with some Europeans in the last few years since I started traveling there. I’ve gotten to talk seriously to a few Dutch, Danish, French, British, and South African folks on work and vacation trips to Europe, and more than a few Bulgarians. They do for the most part see us as good people, and an emblem of modernity and economic opportunity. But they are, almost to a person, deeply suspicious and distrustful of our current (and to a lesser extent, past- see Iran/Iraq, 70s and 80s) government and its terrible, at times brutal, approach to foreign policy.

jfrazell wrote:

Please cite when the UN did anything productive. The largest financial and bribery scandals in the history of the world. Massive bureacracies spending vast amounts of money instead of sending them on to aid poorer nations. non-existent controls and an interesting habit of singling out the US and Israel in their "human rights" organizations wihile ignoring atrocities, well, pretty much everywhere else.

Don't blame the UN for that. Sure there will be nepotism in certain jobs, sure there will be corruption. No international body of that scale would possibly be free of such moral pressures. However the UN is there. While a grossly unfair organisation it doesnt allow a forum for nations to voice opinions, and by making it unfair it enables the powerful nations to back it in a manner they could not with the previous League of Nations, which allowed no veto powers and was open to every state equally.

The UN has had its successes. Smallpox eradication, Balkans war crimes trials. Stability on certain hostile fronts, Cyprus for example. The hatreds are still there, but the peace has been kept since 1974 very successfully. The solution to the Korean war was only possible through the UN. However the most telling advantage has been the meeting point for nuclear powers which has enabled very heated issues that could have resulted in nuclear war to cool sufficuiently to keep idiotic fingers off triggers.

The UN has had its successes. Smallpox eradication,
****Direct aid and services are more efficient, but I’ll grant that this is their best claim and an important one. Of course that’s also many years ago.

Balkans war crimes trials.
***You mean the ones where they convicted, what? Two people? How were those two people caught? It wasn’t by UN troops.

Stability on certain hostile fronts, Cyprus for example. The hatreds are still there, but the peace has been kept since 1974 very successfully.
***I don’t knwow the situation in Cyrus so that’s a gimme to you.

The solution to the Korean war was only possible through the UN.
****No it was made possible because Eisenhower threatened to nuke North Korea, and the fact US and allied forces stopped them.

However the most telling advantage has been the meeting point for nuclear powers which has enabled very heated issues that could have resulted in nuclear war to cool sufficuiently to keep idiotic fingers off triggers.
****Like what? Cuba was done independently of the UN.

Respectfully Orlanth, the problem is that most things can be done independently of the UN with less cost. The UN is a bureaucrats dream. Literally billions dropping into sinkholes. I’d go halfway and agree to retain some of their relief agencies, but pretty much everything else gets chucked out the door. the moment the largest financial scam in the history of mankind occurs on your watch, you're no longer qualified to handle money.

Blaming the US for the UN is putting the cart before the horse. The UN isn't the US, but somehow the US has gotten the lion's share of the financial bills. I have a real issue with that. If all the countries are supposed to be equal...be equal. I am all for the League of Nations, as every voter should count equally, but so should the responsibility. San Marino...send some troops. Luxembourg too.

If you are going to have teeth, have teeth. I do think the security council is better than nothing. But barely. When I see the world, and I look at the UN, I'm hardly inspired.

Mannahnin wrote:I’m certainly not saying that it is. I love my country. I love the principles it was founded on. The concepts embodied in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are amazing and wonderful things, especially in the context of the times. The fact that we took a long time actually implementing some of them (like equal rights for women and minorities) doesn’t tarnish the beauty of those ideas.

This really deserves it's own thread. And maybe I'll make it. But evaluating the brilliance of the Constitution using modern expectations of freedom completely diminishes the power of the document (and I see modernists do this all the time). We didn't take a long time implementing the full freedom/scope...the entire whole of humanity took a LONG time waking up to the central tenets of the document. Those equal rights people take for granted now have their absolute basis in the Constitution itself. That is how revolutionary the document continues to be. Beliefs that existed for thousands of years were washed away in less than two centuries after the crafting of the Constitution.

Viewing the past and judging history through the modern prism is only good for self-aggrandising egomaniacs looking for an easy high horse. This doesn't mean the past is immune to criticism (and boy, it doesn't), but you'd better pack a lunch and do your homework if you want to start.

Since I used to live in Cyprus (albeit for less than a year)...

The UN hasn't solved the problem there. They've just kept in the same for 30 years. The Greek Cypriots and Turks still largely hate each other and neither is willing to give an inch (as seen in recent referendums).

The capital is still divided with a bombed out corridor in the middle patrolled by troops. No one has been there in years and there's still sandbags in the windows.

All the UN has done is freeze-frame things there. When they leave we could very well have a war between Greece and Turkey that will rip the Balkans apart, and since both are NATO members it'll be a diplomatic nightmare for anyone to intervene.

In Rwanda, the UN bottled up ethnic tensions till they exploded and the slaughter hit an unimaginable scale. That won't happen in Cyprus, but the end result could ultimately end up being worse than if the US and Britain had pressured the sides into a brokered settlement at the time that actually solved the problems in a more permanent way.

Chuck, should I assume we're now in agreement on the original subject of the thread?

Ragnar

We were always in agreement. I simply think the argument needs to be rescoped into "what is best for the troops on the ground". Because I don't care if the media or Harry Reid don't like it, and I don't care about other countries worrying about it. I care about whether it helps or hurts.

And I tend to agree it hurts. So it should not be done for that reason, plus all of the others. It doesn't work BECAUSE all of the other reasons. That said, I never think it's open and shut...I think you always have to address it when volunteers are in danger.

I agree that it’s important to consider our options carefully, and do our best for the troops.

Torture is never going to be a good option. What Rumsfeld, the justice department, the CIA and the military personnel involved have done so far is a deep stain on our nation’s honor, and is going to have farther reaching consequences than just the people and the families who suffered directly and are suffering now thanks to this unconscionable, idiotic, and arguably evil policy.