Repeat after me, Torture does not work!

It is interesting how often people form opinions about things based not on logic and facts, but on emotion. This issue of "is waterboarding torture?" is a good exmaple. This thread has given rise to another, related question: "Even if it is torture, should we do it anyway?". This second question has two components, one moral and one practical: is it the "right" thing to do? And, is it effective?

Is waterboarding torture? According to longstanding tradition and law, the answer is easy: hell yes it is. If it's not torture, then why was a U.S. Army major convicted and sentenced to 10 years of hard labor in 1901 for waterboarding an insurgent in the Philippines? If it's not torture, then why was a U.S. Army Soldier court-martialed as recently as 1968 for waterboarding a prisoner in Vietnam? These are incontrovertible facts, but because they are inconvenient, proponents of waterboarding/torture, like the current administration, simply ignores them. Ask John McCain, who was tortured while a POW in Vietnam, and he will tell you that "yes", it is indeed torture. In fact, I have read that he described it as "exquisite". So anybody trying to claim that it isn't torture is simply and unquestionably ignorant of the facts.

That leads to the second question, should we do it anyway? I don't know that there's a "right" or "wrong" answer to the moral aspect of this question, in the sense that everybody has to come to their own decision when deciding what their morals are. I will say, however, that it is interesting how many self-described "conservatives", who thump their chests and piously declare that they are for values, integrity, morals, etc, are very quick to abandon those morals when they think it's convenient. If you are willing to adopt the same standard of behavior as an enemy who you despise as sub-human, what does that say about you? What makes you any different from them? Of course you justify it because you believe you are "on the side of justice". Well, I've got news for you: so do they. And if you don't have the mental capacity to understand just why this issue is so important, then you have no business trying to engage in an adult conversation, because you will only embarrass yourself.

I have seen several people in this thread use the pathetic excuse, "well, the insurgents are cutting people's heads off, so we can waterboard". A previous poster already pointed out that there isn't a provision in the Geneva Convention which says anything like, "If your enemy does it first, then it's okay". This kind of rationalization is literally schoolyard-level justification for poor behavior; it's the kind of thing you would expect to hear from a 10-year old, not a (supposed) adult. But this excuse, I'm sure unwittingly, does strike at the heart of a very important question: what is the true goal of torture? This question is answered along with the question of "is it effective?".

Many people say (including several in this thread), "If it saves even one life, it's worth it". This argument assumes that torture is an effective means of extracting information. As just about any professional interrogator will tell you, it is not. Oh, it absolutely does work in individual cases, but here's the rub: in at least as many (if not a lot more) cases, the interogatee will confess to/say anything in order to get the torture to stop. At this point, I'm sure that the people who have no problems with torturing people will say, "So what?" The problem is that there is no reliable way to consistently tell them apart from the people divulging true information. The result is that you have obtained "intelligence" of very quesionable value. Any second-rate intelligence agency can obtain second-rate intelligence; the hallmark of a good intelligence agency is the ability to obtain quality intelligence, consistently. I read one poster in this thread who sarcastically asked, "What are we supposed to do, ask them nicely?" The irony is that treating the interrogatee as a human being, even if you despise him, is the proven method for consistently getting quality information from a subject. Again, anybody who has any actual experience with this subject knows this. A good example is the Phoenix Program in Vietnam; not what it eventually turned into, but what it was when it first began. It was a surprisingly effective program, and it treated the interrogatees very well; exceedingly well, by the standards of the "make 'em think they're drowning!!"-crowd.

So, if it's definitely illegal, arguably immoral, and not effective, then why is it done at all? It's used for two reasons; because the interrogator is incompetent and doesn't know what else to do, and because it is used to terrorize/intimidate people. Right now I am sure that there are a bunch of people gnashing their teeth at this "America-hating, terrorist-loving, limp-wristed, wimp" for having the nerve to say such a thing. So don't take my word for it. Save yourself the embarrassment and before you reply with your Ad Hominem invective, read the following article: "The Pointless Scuffle Over Torture", by Robert Baer.

An excerpt:


--http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1668971,00.html

Simply put, the insurgents don't behead their prisoners in order to extract information. They did/do it to instill fear in their enemy. And instilling fear is the true purpose of practices like waterboarding as well.

Keep in mind that Baer is a 20-year vet of the CIA, which he spent in Operations. Much of that time was actually spent in the Middle East. His service gave him the background and experience to render an informed opinion.

Repeat after me, Torture does not work!

If you rely on the only intelligence gathering being torturing someone with 24 hours to go, we are all screwed.

So, what you are saying is that if a terrorist was torturing you, you would give up information that would cost your fellow soldiers their lives? You fellow Americans? Your family? Would you cave under any circumstances? Neither would they.

Be prepared for the backlash, because I already am. "Water boarding" would be considered a quaint slap on the wrist, and a lot of people would demand measures that would make the Patriot Act look like a Boy Scout manual. That's when the REAL fight for our freedoms will start.

This bickering about the semantics of what's torture or a useful interrogation technique will sound absolutely silly in comparison.

Would you tell the terrorists where your wife and kids were if they tortured you?

Suppose you were faced with the following choice: We have you and your two children. Call your third child and trick him into coming here - we'll kill him and let the rest of you go. If you don't, we will take your two other children here chop off a limb an hour right in front of you. Rationally you should not give in, since they are probably lying about letting the other two go. But once they start, are you really so sure you wouldn't break?

Western populations have faced great threats and destruction (the London Blitz, the IRA attacks in England) without resorting to such measures against the attackers.

Yes, I am sure I wouldn't break.

The only thing going through my head at that moment is how can I get loose. A free hand, my teeth, I'll whisper the answer and bite an ear, nose, I will fight to the last breath, but they wouldn't break me.

Yes, I can say that with resolve.

Why can't you?

Then you let him go, and all three of your children die. Are you going to trust someone who is willing to threaten you like that ?

This type of thing happens all the time. People's children are kidnapped, they pay a ransom, and then they wind up finding the kids body - if they are lucky.

That's why you don't negotiate with terrorist demands. The second you do , you become open to more threats.

Then under this category solitary confinment is torture. Its done to punish and is certainly not mentally healthy. Can I have one person on here adress solitary confinment by this definition?

Because others say it is or it is not, should not be a rationale for claiming the tecnique is torture or not, but should only serve as weight to an argument. What's your rationale.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 9, 2007; Page A04

A former Navy survival instructor subjected to waterboarding as part of his military training told Congress yesterday that the controversial tactic should plainly be considered torture and that such a method was never intended for use by U.S. interrogators because it is a relic of abusive totalitarian governments.

Well, thats why you have to examine the nature of the cases- The way application was used, how it was carried out, and with what intent

I'm sure your of the same group who bashes republicans who support the war in iraq and claim that these people dont think for themselves, yet if I question something that is in line with currrent policy, you cite me for raising a point.

But there are people like myself who do not believe that subjecting someone to 40 seconds of waterboarding using cellephane is not torture.

Actionable intelligence my friend is not opinion- Its Fact.

Now if it was used widespread and administered indicriminately- then yes it would send people we would consider rational in terrorist camps. But I have never advocated for anything but very limited use in limited circumstances in a limited manner, for a limited period of time.

Now the Ex-seal who had a different method applied to him for a duration of 24 minutes characterized it as painful. THAT PARTICULIAR APPLICATION AND DURATION was torture.

Western populations have faced greater threats and destruction (the London Blitz, the IRA attacks in England) without resorting to such measures against the attackers.

Actually, the outrage you have heard of is that the current US federal government was warned about the potential threat, and even informed about the exact type of attack, and yet took no precautions. The information was already there, but it wasn't acted upon.

And please don’t copy/paste garbage from the myriad conspiracy web sites out there. Use nonpartisan sources from reputable news/journalism sites.

Specious argument. “Bomber” Harris obliterated countless German cities in retaliation for German attacks, and killed how many countless hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children? Are you telling me "that" was much more humane than if the British water boarded a few high-intelligence German prisoners and gleaned information that targeted only a few important areas with well placed raids? And you have no idea what British intelligence “really” did behind closed doors in their fight against the IRA. They could have used “techniques” far worse than water boarding.

The British government ordered the RAF to adhere strictly to the Amsterdam draft international rules prohibiting attacking civilian infrastructure outside the combat zones, but this adherence was abandoned on May 15, 1940, one day after the Rotterdam Blitz. On August 24, 1940 some German aircraft strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and northeast of the city. A period of reciprocal retaliation began, mainly focussed on industrial areas. In February 1942 the British abandoned attempts at strategic precision bombing and with the issuing of the area bombing directive to the RAF, put most of their strategic bombing efforts into area bombardment and the "dehousing" of the German workforce.

The United States Government entered the war intending to use strategic precision bombing, which was used with mixed success in Europe and never abandoned as a policy. However over Japan because of the jetstream, strategic precision bombing proved to be a failure and the policy was abandoned in favour of policy of area bombardment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

Tom Parker, a former counterterrorism official from the United Kingdom who worked in the field of international terrorism, described himself as an investigator who “likes to put bad guys in jail.” Referencing the British experience in Northern Ireland in the early 1970’s, Parker asserted that torture was simply not effective. The British “interrogation in depth,” which included such practices as hooding, wall standing, stress positions, subjection to noise, and food and water deprivation, was largely a reaction to increased terrorism activity by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). However, in the months following the adoption of these interrogation techniques, murders by the IRA soared from 21 to 147, with a total of 467 killings in 1972. The practices alienated the British from their most important partner, the civilian population of the Irish Republic, and resulted in a judgment against the British by the European Court of Human Rights. Parker stated that “actionable intelligence” is obtainable only within 48 hours of an individual’s capture and that holding prisoners for three or four years, as is the case in Guantánamo, has no practical utility. Good interrogators, he said, do not use violence but build rapport with a suspect: the use of torture is a sign of poor intelligence work.

ttp://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_
id=1427&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=235780

To understand what difference the torture ban will make, I spoke this week with British sources about the interrogation techniques used against the Irish Republican Army in the early 1970s. The British were facing a hideous IRA bombing campaign, and to stop the bombers, the British army and police in Northern Ireland tried to squeeze information from their IRA prisoners.

The British recognized what every cop knows — that interrogation is much easier if the prisoner is disoriented. So the British put hoods on their IRA prisoners, just as U.S. interrogators have done in Iraq. The British approved other harsher methods: depriving IRA prisoners of sleep, making them lean against a wall for long periods, using “white noise” that would confuse them.

The clincher for British interrogators was mock execution. The preferred method in the mid-1970s was to take hooded IRA prisoners up in helicopters over the lakes near Belfast and threaten to throw them out if they didn’t talk. Sometimes, they actually were thrown out. The prisoners didn’t know that the helicopter was only a few yards above the water. I’m told that technique nearly always worked. (So, too, with the “waterboarding” that U.S. interrogators used to break al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed.) The British eventually had to give up their extreme techniques because of public outcry, and I’m told they got less information. But they eventually prevailed against the IRA.

What of the extreme case that should haunt us all, when an al Qaeda prisoner may know the location of a ticking nuclear bomb? Here, too, the right answer is the rule of law. Under the new rules, an aggressive interrogator who discovers information that prevents a nuclear attack may still be charged with a crime. But I doubt any judge or jury would ever convict him. That’s the essence of a lawful society — that hard decisions are left to courts, not to individuals. McCain got it exactly right when Newsweek asked him about this ultimate test. “You do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it.”

ttp://www.qctimes.com/articles/2005/12/18/
opinion/opinion/doc43a4e70d5b2e3058405298.txt

Does the prohibition of the use of torture in interrogation affect the ability of the GSS to thwart acts of terror?

A In the two years following the High Court of Justice ruling, the premise that only by the use of torture enables the GSS to defend the state's security has been discredited. The source of this premise is rooted in the long years when the security services terrorized the courts, usually through confidential reports that were heard behind closed doors. Torture, house demolition, expulsion, detention without trial and land expropriation; the court bent before the security system and trampled on its way many principles of law, morality and justice. Only the years-long struggle carried out by many human rights organizations brought about the High Court of Justice decision, which is proving to be both moral and beneficial to Israel's security.

In addition, it can be learned from the achievements of similar organizations responsible for the security of other Western states that the development of improved methods of interrogation and the employment of high- quality staff in the security services has an overwhelming influence in the defense of these states from terror.

The state of Israel can learn from the example of England, a democratic country where the use of torture was stopped during the time of serious terrorist actions, which averaged 300 victims per month.

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/faq.asp?menu=10&submenu=1

U.N. Panel Rules Israel Uses Torture
Published: May 10, 1997

A United Nations committee today condemned Israeli techniques in questioning suspected terrorists, including violent shaking, painful restraints and sleep deprivation, as state-sanctioned torture.

ttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9906EFDB1539F933A25756C0A961958260

"Proponents of torture always cite the ticking-bomb scenario. The problem is that the situation is infinitely elastic. You start by applying it to a terrorist suspect, and soon you're applying it to his next-door neighbor who perhaps might know something."

- Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch and a former federal prosecutor

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040517-634640,00.html

PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.

-US Army Field Manual 34-52

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/toc.htm

Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

You are drowning aren't you dude? You are searching for anything that follows your logic and there isn't any ? If you still don't see the logic you never will. You are lost in it!