Torture vs. Interrogation

[Professor S]

I wanted to as this question, because I hear a lot of people in the news and otherwise discussing enhanced interrogation as torture. The following is described as enhanced interrogation by SERE: (Survival , Evasion, Resistance and Escape). Most of these, if not all were prohibited by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act:

Prolonged isolation
Prolonged sleep deprivation
Sensory deprivation
Extremely painful "stress positions"
Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights)
Forced nakedness
Sexual humiliation
Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures)
Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia
Exploitation of phobias
Simulation of the experience of drowning, i.e., waterboarding.

So my questions is this: You have an enemy who has information you need to save lives and he refuses to share what he knows. How do you get it?

If you would like, you can reference the 2006 Army Field Manual.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf

[manasecret]

At first I'd like to point out, as it's not immediately obvious, that the SERE you reference was originally developed as a training program for soldiers to resist such types of "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" when it is done to them. It is not a training program on how to perform such tactics. Developed during the Korean War and extended to the Vietnam War, such tactics were used against our soldiers to torture fake confessions out of them in order to bolster their propaganda.

I'd call it torture, since from my general knowledge I think psychological torture is just as harmful if not more harmful than the standard run-of-the-mill physical torture. Calling it anything else to me is just trying to make it sound more benign so that it's easier to argue that it's ok, since "we're not talking about torture here, this is ok!"

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

At first I'd like to point out, as it's not immediately obvious, that the SERE you reference was originally developed as a training program for soldiers to resist such types of "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" when it is done to them. It is not a training program on how to perform such tactics. Developed during the Korean War and extended to the Vietnam War, such tactics were used against our soldiers to torture fake confessions out of them in order to bolster their propaganda.

I'd call it torture, since from my general knowledge I think psychological torture is just as harmful if not more harmful than the standard run-of-the-mill physical torture. Calling it anything else to me is just trying to make it sound more benign so that it's easier to argue that it's ok, since "we're not talking about torture here, this is ok!"

I mention SERE because that is what is most often referenced when discussing enhnced interrogation techniques.

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I mention SERE because that is what is most often referenced when discussing enhnced interrogation techniques.

My question remains: How do you get the information legally?

The same way they've done it for decades - without torture. Good-cop, bad-cop (or good-soldier, bad-soldier, if you prefer). Just look at the Army Field Manual you provided yourself. Trying to extract information from someone who doesn't want to give it is nothing new.

My guess is you have an agenda with this thread, so get with it already.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

The same way they've done it for decades - without torture. Good-cop, bad-cop (or good-soldier, bad-soldier, if you prefer). Just look at the Army Field Manual you provided yourself. Trying to extract information from someone who doesn't want to give it is nothing new.

My guess is you have an agenda with this thread, so get with it already.

You do know that during WW2 many of our GI's were trained on how to interrogate using the battery of their field telephones, right?

But beyond this, you do good cop bad cop, and they don't give up the information as many simple criminals don't when interrogated using those methods, especially if they must be goven ample amounts of sleep and comfortable living conditions (our own accused criminals often don't get that). Then what?

My agenda is that there needs to be an answer to a real situtation, not simply a criticism. Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working. So if you remove certain techniques, how then do you get the information you need if approved techniques don't work?

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

My agenda is that there needs to be an answer to a real situtation, not simply a criticism. Getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques does not sudden erase the problem that existing techniques were not working. So if you remove certain techniques, how then do you get the information you need if approved techniques don't work?

Proof? And I don't mean Dick Cheney's assertions.

Pretty much all that I've heard in recent reports, now that much of the Bush era people and memos are coming out and speaking up, are saying that torture wasn't needed, and that we were getting information without torture. Not to mention, much like regular physical torture, they all seem to say that "enhanced techniques" don't get you the facts, it just forces the one being abused to tell you what you want to hear.

[Bond]

Well, the founding fathers warned against suspending civil liberties in times of war. But, if one looks back to our history of military conflict, liberties have been suspended during nearly every single conflict. It's certainly a complex issue.

My understanding is that these tactics were not used to learn past information, but rather to learn intelligence that would assist the military in the future.

[Bond]

I suppose the real question is: does the Constitution / rule of law apply to enemy combatants, depending upon where they are located, which is a question I am not able to fully answer. If the rule of law does apply, then we must treat these enemy combatants as any other citizen. If the rule of law does not apply, then I believe using any means necessary to protect our people is appropriate.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Bond

I suppose the real question is: does the Constitution / rule of law apply to enemy combatants, depending upon where they are located, which is a question I am not able to fully answer. If the rule of law does apply, then we must treat these enemy combatants as any other citizen. If the rule of law does not apply, then I believe using any means necessary to protect our people is appropriate.

The troble is you can never tell when you have in fact got the wrong guy. What If? you know... what if? which brings me again to the point in my earlier post, I believe a man would sign a document saying he was the devil incarnate come to destroy the world if tortured enough (would sign anything) It depends in some way how much the torturer wants the torturee to confess.

As far as I know a soldier is a soldier wherever he is in the world and is a representitive of the army and thus the country he is serving, as said representitive he is restricted to the same laws as anyone else of that country. No one is above or below the law. I can not comment on the US constituion though as I have little knowledge of it, I live in the UK, it does not apply to me.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bond

I suppose the real question is: does the Constitution / rule of law apply to enemy combatants, depending upon where they are located, which is a question I am not able to fully answer. If the rule of law does apply, then we must treat these enemy combatants as any other citizen. If the rule of law does not apply, then I believe using any means necessary to protect our people is appropriate.

Well, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 technically squashes that argument. It states all un-unifirmed combatants, insurgents, etc. are protected under the Geneva convention, which falls under the Treaty portion of the Costitution's executive powers. I disagree with it in principle, but it is what it is.

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

My question is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Professor S

My questions is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work.

To me what that says is if you tell the captive what you are going to do to them first then it's not torture. So if I had a captive and said I am gonna start cutting your nuts off untill you tell me what I want to know then done it then it's not torture, too extreme? what if I said I would punch them in the face until they told me what I wanted to know, then done it, would that not be torture because I told them first?

I honestly believe waterboarding is torture. Do you honestly believe prisoners are told what is going to happen first? If they were they would just endure it. If they dont know then they will fear they might drown and so will be more likely confess.

[Professor S]

Well, not really. The definition of torture ( that can be prosecuted in the US) is to cause physical pain, multilation or to psychologically torture with that definition being to instill the fear of death in the efforts to gain information. Also, intent to torture is a part of that as well, but we'll leave that part out for the sake of this discussion.

So why waterboarding is such a grey area is because it meets none of those criteria when you tell the detainee beforehand they will not die. Once you remove the fear of death, it ceases being torture, technically speaking because it doesn't case any pain and does not mutilate. As for whether or not they were "really" told, all we know is that the interrogators were instructed to tell the detainees they would not be killed. Other than that, we don't know as there is no evidence to the contrary.

I imagine they would tell them, because the technique has proven to instill severe panic regardess of the conditions it is presented in, so why not cover your ass? I listened to a local radio sho where a DJ was brought to tears when he was waterboarded with kool aid for only a minute or so. The technique apparently plays on an inherent reaction to drowning that kicks in regardless of your knowledge.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well, not really. The definition of torture ( that can be prosecuted in the US) is to cause physical pain, multilation or to psychologically torture with that definition being to instill the fear of death in the efforts to gain information.

I understand that by U.S law it (waterboarding) is not classed as torture but you origionally asked wether I considered it to be torture or not and the answer was yes.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Besides that to quote 'to instill the fear of death in the efforts to gain information'

Kind of makes two of your next points contradict eachother

Originally Posted by Professor S

So why waterboarding is such a grey area is because it meets none of those criteria when you tell the detainee beforehand they will not die.

Really

Originally Posted by Professor S

I listened to a local radio sho where a DJ was brought to tears when he was waterboarded with kool aid for only a minute or so. The technique apparently plays on an inherent reaction to drowning that kicks in regardless of your knowledge.

Fear of death by drowning perhaps? Natural instinct.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Once you remove the fear of death, it ceases being torture, technically speaking because it doesn't case any pain and does not mutilate.

How, pray tell would you remove one's fear of death. I dont imagine prisoners believe their captors every word? You would not ever really know what to expect in that situation. Also if someone is not scared of dying, as in I have 'removed their fear' and then I strap a car battery to their bollocks then it is not torture because I have removed his fear of death right? Instilling fear of death is mental pain which is as bad as if not worse than physical pain.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Also, intent to torture is a part of that as well, but we'll leave that part out for the sake of this discussion.

Bearing in mind I consider waterboarding as torture lets not. If you tell someone you are about to torture them, then torture them, then you are torturing them.

I realise that I am picking apart what U.S law says here more than anything but I thought our opinions were the whole point of the thread? So you know I dont mean to seem like I am personally digging at you but you just got me started is all

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 technically squashes that argument. It states all un-unifirmed combatants, insurgents, etc. are protected under the Geneva convention, which falls under the Treaty portion of the Costitution's executive powers. I disagree with it in principle, but it is what it is.

http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html

My question is whether or not waterboarding is truly defineable torture seeing that it doesn't really fall into the definitions if the detainees are told they will not be killed before hand. To me it's a grey area to be exploited in very rare and extreme situations if it's proven to work.

Well, then here is what I would say (which is what I believe you're saying). We should air on the side of caution, and regard waterboarding as torture. So, as torture, it (and other practices), should not be used under normal circumstances. If there is an imminent threat to our country, then it seems reasonable to violate an enemy combatant's liberties for the protection of our people.

[Professor S]

Seems reasonable to me, but I'd like there to continue to be some checks and balances. If someone does call for the "nuclear option", I think that it needs to have Presidential approval for highest acountability, and rare enough that such a responsibility would not encumber the president.

After those thresholds are met, Jack Bauer the motherf**ker.