[razzledobe]

With all of the buzz surrounding UBL's capture there have been qualified intelligence personnel on both sides of the fence claiming that enhanced interrogation techniques were effective and were not effective.

Hypothetical situation (aren't these always fun?) if you were in posession of a high value detainee in the field and you are 70-80% sure said asset has information that will be responsible for preparing and/or executing a terrorist attack (this could be a terrorist attack on your military installation, or back home... doesnt matter. In this scenario this is where the percentage of certainty comes into play that this person has valuable intel).

How far are you willing to go to extract information from this person? Do you even care to try to extract information from this person or would you be willing to simply arrest them and allow them to clam up thus hampering your investigation?

[Undomesticated Housewife]

I dont know for sure how far I'd go. I could probably waterboard (water-board?) someone. I mean, I'm being honest. I probably could. If there was any blood involved..like cutting someone or anything of that nature, I couldn't do it. I'd be afraid I'd become a serial killer if I participated in something like that. Regardless of whether that could "turn" a person into a killer, I'd still freak out & think that way!!

[*Jillian*]

I wouldn't torture to get information. When people are undergoing torture they are more likely to say anything for it to stop. Therefore you get information that isn't' always reliable.

[Poncho06]

Depends on what the information is and how bad I needed it. If someone kidnapped my kids and torture would get the info, I'd do it in a heartbeat and wouldn't have a second thought.

[Undomesticated Housewife]

My response was only based on the hypothetical situation that the person very, very likely had information that had to do with a terrorist attack & having the info could stop it. Oddly, if my kids were kidnapped, I'd totally cut a *****, too. Whatever was necessary. I don't know why my kids being kidnapped seems more extreme in my mind than a terrorist attack..since it could also injure my kids. If I KNEW my kids would likely be injured or killed in the attack, yeah, I'd do whatever necessary. Cut a few fingers off..an arm..wevs. I'd do just about anything to protect my kids aside from hurting other innocent people.

[Poncho06]

^^^ Apparently I have zero reading comprehension skills today and totally missed out on the hypothetical situation in the OP, but ya if I felt certain the person had information that could save innocent lives I'd do it.

[razzledobe]

Originally Posted by *Jillian*

I wouldn't torture to get information. When people are undergoing torture they are more likely to say anything for it to stop. Therefore you get information that isn't' always reliable.

I'm just curious as to how you've formed your opinion that people undergoing torture will say anything in order to make it stop? For this exercise, if you had a good amount of intel already (again the 70-80% probability that your asset had info you needed) would you not go about your interrogation in a way that helped you understand if your asset was being factual?

Example: Who is behind this plot? that is an open ended question that would allow the asset to lead you down a rabbit trail. THis is most commonly seen in movies etc where the asset spits out a name and a ficticious 'team' pounces on that lead. Would you not consider a more closed line of questioning such as the following example. Lets say that you already know of a possible scapegoat that you and your intel have cleared - but your asset doesn't know that... perhaps if you mix in their name with two others that are more possible and you see which the asset chooses as a method of determining probability of truthfulness.

Would you not consider employing those tactics if you had to torture someone as to gague if they're just blindly cooperating versus being truthful? Does your answer change if it is your children? Lastly, if not torture what methods WOULD you employ then to get this information you're relatively certain this person had in order to achieve your goal?

Gathering intel from people that do NOT want to give it is never a zero-sum game. There are always risks and rewards.

[MLMB]

Originally Posted by *Jillian*

I wouldn't torture to get information. When people are undergoing torture they are more likely to say anything for it to stop. Therefore you get information that isn't' always reliable.

Totally agree with this. I think a lot of the time the people with the information are trained to resist torture, obviously everyone has a breaking point but you never know if the information is accurate and i wouldn't want to base everything off of possible inaccurate information when so many lives ccould be at stake.

That being said, to be completly honest, i beleive i could probably torture someone. I'm not a very vendictive person but i have this place deep down that, fortunantly, not many people have seen. That place can get pretty dark. And i really have no problem with blood.

Also i, personally, wouldn't worry about something like becoming a serial killer or anything. I know the difference between doing a bad thing for the right reasons and doing a bad thing for the wrong reasons, or no reason at all.

[razzledobe]

MLMB- good points. There are many ways to try to validate information when interrogating someone. Those of you that are against torture, i'd like to see you answer the question as to what methods of interrogration you WOULD employ to help secure a target against an attack. Where would you personally draw the line.

[*Jillian*]

I formed my opinion based on studies. I'll grab some of the many for you. bbiab.

Neuroscience:Torture Doesn't Work and Here's Why - Newsweek

"It's extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish," he told reporters. "When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve," Alexander explained. "The information that you get is unreliable ... And even if you do get reliable information, you're able to stop a terrorist attack, Al-Qaeda's then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members." Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information.

Ex-Interrogator: Torture Doesn't Work

You asked me too many questions and I'll have to get back to you. I'm only taking a short break while cleaning my house. lol

[L-SBB]

Originally Posted by *Jillian*

I wouldn't torture to get information. When people are undergoing torture they are more likely to say anything for it to stop. Therefore you get information that isn't' always reliable.

I totally agree...as to OP's question on evidence to support this position, I don't know how many studies have been done (and almost every country denies using torture) but I liked this article on the subject: Trends in Cognitive Science, Shane O?Mara and I think it's quoted in one of the links Jillian cited.

There's plenty of evidence within our own judicial system involving false confessions that people do lie or give false info in the face of interrogation pressures (and not even rising to the level of being considered torture), certaintly enough to question the accuracy of info secured from torture.

Even if you could be assured that 100% accurate info could be secured, I still can't get comfortable with an "ends justify the means" logic to endorsing torture...and I doubt we could get agreement in this thread as to what even constitutes torture.

[razzledobe]

Thank you, I'll go read those

I offer in the meantime a counterpoint

Marc A. Thiessen - Enhanced Interrogations Worked - washingtonpost.com

In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast

CIA Interrogation Program Was Effective and Circumscribed - WSJ.com

Whoever advised people to be skeptical of what they read in the papers must have had in mind this week's coverage of the documents about CIA interrogations. Now that we've had a chance to read the reports, it's clear the real story isn't the few cases of abuse played up by the media. The news is that the program was thoughtfully developed, carefully circumscribed, briefed to Congress, and yielded information crucial to disrupting al Qaeda.

In other words, it worked—at least until politics got in the way.

That's the essential judgment offered by former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson in his 2004 report. Some mild criticism aside, the report says the CIA "invested immense time and effort to implement the [program] quickly, effectively, and within the law"; that the agency "generally provided good guidance and support"; and that agency personnel largely "followed guidance and procedures and documented their activities well." So where's the scandal?

BLACKFIVE: CIA Interrogation report vindicates Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

four redacted who were interviewed admitted to either participating in one of the above described incidents or hearing about them. Redacted described staging a mock execution of a detainee. reportedly a detainee who witnessed the "body" in the aftermath of the ruse "sang like a bird".....

Originally Posted by L-SBB

I totally agree...as to OP's question on evidence to support this position, I don't know how many studies have been done (and almost every country denies using torture) but I liked this article on the subject: Trends in Cognitive Science, Shane O?Mara and I think it's quoted in one of the links Jillian cited.

There's plenty of evidence within our own judicial system involving false confessions that people do lie or give false info in the face of interrogation pressures (and not even rising to the level of being considered torture), certaintly enough to question the accuracy of info secured from torture.

Even if you could be assured that 100% accurate info could be secured, I still can't get comfortable with an "ends justify the means" logic to endorsing torture...and I doubt we could get agreement in this thread as to what even constitutes torture.

I appreciate the sentiment certainly no one WANTS to torture anyone. I dont want to take this argument to an extreme- but in the article (to your point) this talks about people that are innocently improsoned just under standard interrogation pressures. Surely we can't stop conducting investigations because of the reality that innocent people do get jailed. I still havent really heard a proposition or solution to how to go about getting information out of someone - a human being- that you are 70-80% CERTAIN (due to previous intel from other sources, surveillance, partial admissions) etc.

I'm hearing more of an argument along the lines of "torture doesnt work and even asking questions in a really tough manner will get soeone to admit to saying they're the easter bunny ... so we really shouldnt ask anyone any hard questions" ...certainly there has to be a slightly more sophisticated approach to such a delicate matter?

[L-SBB]

Originally Posted by razzledobe

I appreciate the sentiment certainly no one WANTS to torture anyone. I dont want to take this argument to an extreme- but in the article (to your point) this talks about people that are innocently improsoned just under standard interrogation pressures. Surely we can't stop conducting investigations because of the reality that innocent people do get jailed. I still havent really heard a proposition or solution to how to go about getting information out of someone - a human being- that you are 70-80% CERTAIN (due to previous intel from other sources, surveillance, partial admissions) etc.

I'm hearing more of an argument along the lines of "torture doesnt work and even asking questions in a really tough manner will get soeone to admit to saying they're the easter bunny ... so we really shouldnt ask anyone any hard questions" ...certainly there has to be a slightly more sophisticated approach to such a delicate matter?

As to the article links...the U.S. has repeatedly insisted that its interrogation techniques are not torture. And even if we argue they are (and i'm not arguing that) having the Govt state that their techniques were extremely effective in gathering intel is hardly compelling - would we expect them to indicate otherwise?

My only point in raising the false confession example is that even less violent methods of interrogation do sometimes result in inaccurate information being provided by the interrogated...so it's reasonable to question the accuracy of info secured through much harsher techniques. I'm not suggesting that interrogations shouldn't be conducted...but there is a level of severity (torture) that I personally am not willing to endorse as a govt interrogation tool, even if you could be assured it would provide accurate intel 100% of the time.

It's a worthy goal to want to secure intel, but imo it's not a goal that justifies doing absolutely anything to get it...certain interrogation techniques are fine, but I'm also willing to accept that some prisoners won't talk and thus some intel will be lost.

I don't know that I have the personality to torture anyone that hasn't had a direct impact on my life. Like PP's have said already, I'd do some serious damage to someone that has my kids and won't tell me where they are. I just spent too many years trying to put people back together again to be able to imagine myself actually being willing to be harsh enough to get the needed intel. In fact, I actually imagine I'd step in after interrogations to treat injuries. I know whenever we were called to the jails, I treated the inmate patients the same as any other patients I had.
I don't know. Maybe I could do the things that don't inflict actual injuries (I don't think?) like water boarding or enforcing sleep deprivation. Or I could just sing for a few hours. They'd probably tell everything they know just to get me to shut up.

[razzledobe]

Originally Posted by L-SBB

It's a worthy goal to want to secure intel, but imo it's not a goal that justifies doing absolutely anything to get it...certain interrogation techniques are fine, but I'm also willing to accept that some prisoners won't talk and thus some intel will be lost.

So my question to you is what would you be willing to do to get the intel that you needed? One of the reasons i'm so insistent in asking this question is because we hear almost on a nightly basis the weight we place on candidates positions on torture, enhanced interrogation, criminilization of terror suspects etc. What we don't necessarily do is force people into a box to say what would you do if it were you? Having known people in the intel community, it is very easy to think of them as nameless governmental 'bad guys' that have no heart and soul but these are real issues they struggle with every day. How to hard to press an asset in the time that they have and how to weight the risks versus the reward.

And yes, foxfire i'm fairly certain that my singing would be right up there with waterboarding for prohibited enhanced interrogation techniques!

Again, if you had credible evidence that led to one person having information you needed in order to save innocent lives - would you place the life of that asset above the innocent lives of others by refusing to engage in harsh interrogation techniques?

[L-SBB]

Originally Posted by razzledobe

So my question to you is what would you be willing to do to get the intel that you needed? One of the reasons i'm so insistent in asking this question is because we hear almost on a nightly basis the weight we place on candidates positions on torture, enhanced interrogation, criminilization of terror suspects etc. What we don't necessarily do is force people into a box to say what would you do if it were you? Having known people in the intel community, it is very easy to think of them as nameless governmental 'bad guys' that have no heart and soul but these are real issues they struggle with every day. How to hard to press an asset in the time that they have and how to weight the risks versus the reward.

And yes, foxfire i'm fairly certain that my singing would be right up there with waterboarding for prohibited enhanced interrogation techniques!

Again, if you had credible evidence that led to one person having information you needed in order to save innocent lives - would you place the life of that asset above the innocent lives of others by refusing to engage in harsh interrogation techniques?

As to the first question, having no better way to draw a line as to what's torture vs interrogation technique, I'd follow the U.N. Convention Against Torture (UN Convention Against Torture). I'm sure not as specific an answer as you'd like, but it represents a definition of torture that many countries (including the U.S.) agreed to abide by.

As to your 2nd question, yes I have no problem saying that I do not think torturing someone (to death or simply to dismemberment/extreme harm short of death) is justified even to save innocent lives of others. Among many concerns I have with that type of logic is that it assumes that every individual accused of terrorist activities & interrogated are necessarily guilty (and thus have accurate info to provide), whereas I believe a certain percentage (as with any type of criminal arrests) will be innocent of what they're accused of...so I flip the question around and ask of you how many potentially innocent people are you willing to allowed to be tortured on the belief by a government group/individual (CIA, Military or otherwise) that they may have intel that could be useful?

[razzledobe]

^^ thx
ok so remember though that in this situation, you're 70-80% sure that this person DOES have have the intel that you need. They're being uncooperative. How would you extract that information without crossing the line as defined by the UN?

"torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" ... from your link.

[razzledobe]

to be fair! I need to answer your question

If I was in my own situation that i proposed and I was knew the asset had a 70-80% probability of having critical info that I needed- that means I could be wrong still by a margin of 20%!!!

I would not be willing to draw blood. I think for me that is where the line would be... because I personally couldnt do it. If in the process of conducting my interrogation through other means (will get to that later) I became even MORE certain the person had info I needed but still wasnt giving it up? I probably would resort to handing them off to someone that was willing to do what I wasnt in order to save innocent lives. Yes, I do value the life of innocent people OVER that of people that do not cooperate and are harboring and protecting criminals.

What means would I employ? I wouldnt be above humiliation, threatening family members, sleep deprivation, water boarding... again - this is in my example where there is a high probability that the person I was interrogating had the info I needed.

Also, might I remind us all that Obama was only 50% sure that UBL was in that compound - i mention this as a point to show how intensely difficult and 'un' black and white these situations are

[L-SBB]

Originally Posted by razzledobe

^^ thx
ok so remember though that in this situation, you're 70-80% sure that this person DOES have have the intel that you need. They're being uncooperative. How would you extract that information without crossing the line as defined by the UN?

"torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" ... from your link.

hmm...I think some sleep deprivation tactics are ok, threatening family, staging fake interrogations/harm to scare them is ok, i've never had a really strong opinion on waterboarding although that's a closer call. The grey areas that are really tough are things that may not cause physical harm but that might be extremely mentally damaging (like extended isolation, extreme sleep deprivation)...most are ok in smaller doses but rise to "torture" (at least by U.N. standards) at some point if done long enough.

Originally Posted by razzledobe

I would not be willing to draw blood. I think for me that is where the line would be... because I personally couldnt do it. If in the process of conducting my interrogation through other means (will get to that later) I became even MORE certain the person had info I needed but still wasnt giving it up? I probably would resort to handing them off to someone that was willing to do what I wasnt in order to save innocent lives. Yes, I do value the life of innocent people OVER that of people that do not cooperate and are harboring and protecting criminals.

What means would I employ? I wouldnt be above humiliation, threatening family members, sleep deprivation, water boarding... again - this is in my example where there is a high probability that the person I was interrogating had the info I needed.

Also, might I remind us all that Obama was only 50% sure that UBL was in that compound - i mention this as a point to show how intensely difficult and 'un' black and white these situations are

Do you include broken bones in the "no blood" line? Or is some physical harm acceptable?

[Hey... Where's Perry?]

UBL???