US Torture Report

[Jubal]

Be this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

[comrade_general]

It says there that that's the interrogation techniques that the U.S. started using after the war. That guy sounds kind of like this guy:

without the phallic removal of course.

[Jubal]

Yes - many successful interrogators have used Scharff's techniques.

The reason for deviating from Scharff-style interrogation is that it takes time and patience; torture can extract unreliable confessions quickly. So for people who are just being paid to provide information but have little vested interest in whether, once passed through ten layers of bureaucrats to the army, it proves to be true, torture is a tempting option.

[comrade_general]

Someone has to be devil's advocate here.

[Clockwork]

I'd rather some guys that would be going to jail/death row get tortured on the offchance that the info is good than not doing so, not getting anything at all and something bad happening to any regular law abiding citizen. It's not like they just torture random people, they're chosen for a reason.

[Jubal]

What about people who, for example, happen to have family involved in that sort of thing?
What about people who may hold extremist views/are in extremist networks but have never actually committed a crime?

Additionally, see my stuff on interrogation techniques, plus have a read of this:
https://globalecco.org/en_GB/learning-from-history-what-is-successful-interrogation-
Non-violent interrogation IS more effective according to just about all the evidence we have. We also can't do both to the same person. So why would you "torture someone on the offchance that the info is good" when you can use a much less cruel method that is more likely to get the information you want?

Also, most importantly, what about the major counter-argument that torture makes us less safe - it provides fuel for anti-western radicals, it helps extremists recruit, and it totally cuts the legs from under our argument that fascist or extremist regimes shouldn't torture their own citizens for things like plotting against the state, being gay, saying a rude thing about the government on social media, etc? The evidence seems to me to be overwhelming not only that torture is pretty nasty, but that the risks to the security of western civilians massively appear to outweigh the benefits.

[Pentagathus]

I'd rather some guys that would be going to jail/death row get tortured on the offchance that the info is good than not doing so, not getting anything at all and something bad happening to any regular law abiding citizen. It's not like they just torture random people, they're chosen for a reason.

Innocent people have been detained and tortured, but even convicted criminals shouldn't be getting tortured. Not just because of the pragmatic reasons that Jubals mentioned but also because its wrong. I'd rather have a slightly higher risk of terrorism than know that my security is being provided by torture.

[Jubal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30420220

This is also worth reading,particularly the last bit. The CIA's interrogators on this programme basically weren't as well trained as army interrogators, and in several cases were (to read in between the lines) pretty much hired thugs rather than people trained to gather information.

I should clarify at this point that I also believe that torture is fundamentally morally wrong and that as usual it's a power I simply don't trust states to handle. But I also believe that even if you don't have a moral problem with torture there's an overwhelming body of evidence against it.

[Clockwork]

Also, most importantly, what about the major counter-argument that torture makes us less safe - it provides fuel for anti-western radicals, it helps extremists recruit, and it totally cuts the legs from under our argument that fascist or extremist regimes shouldn't torture their own citizens for things like plotting against the state, being gay, saying a rude thing about the government on social media, etc? The evidence seems to me to be overwhelming not only that torture is pretty nasty, but that the risks to the security of western civilians massively appear to outweigh the benefits.

Even if there was no torture being done at all, they'd still say we were torturing them. It's not like they get any other news than that which radicals telling them what news is. Torturing someone under suspect of terrorism and such is waaaaay different than torturing someone for being gay. One is clearly wrong, one is at the very least, slightly less wrong (though in my opinion, right of course). Also remember that they aren't dealing with nice people, they don't listen to reason, arguments won't work, being nice to them won't work ala the interrogators mentioned in the ww2 file. The soldiers that Moran and Scharff interrogated were either drafted or enlisted to fight for their country probably because their friends did and so forth, not because they believed that their religion superseded everything and that anyone not of their type was evil for simply not being one of them. I highly doubt either of those methods would work. Using psychology to get the topic of the interrogation in the forefront of the subjects mind and then breaking the barriers that prevent people from saying what's on their mind is a sound way of getting information on the topic.

@ Prenty (and a bit to jub): Innocence is relative. The rest is opinion, which is fine.

Back to @Jub: Yeah I also believe that torture is wrong, jesus dude I'm not a psychopath. But also I believe it's the lesser of two evils. In that report it says making friends with them takes time, I would think that this time would mean that most information on plots would be useless by the time they got that information. Also I'm only talking about the torture of terrorists/suspected terrorists, not army personnel that you happen to be at war with which is *very* wrong. If that army uses terror techniques, then they classify as terrorists insofar as the subject matter in my opinion.

EDIT: The result of bad intelligence from torture is that the CIA/Army/whoever chases sand for a couple of hours/days. The result of good intelligence is that people who are better than the person being tortured get to live the rest of their lives. If you're nice to them, the intelligence may be good but it's also not going to be useful to prevent anything that happens in the time between holding them and when they reveal anything. If they ever do.

[comrade_general]

Brain scans are getting more and more advanced every day. Pretty soon they'll be able to just extract the information digitally. Then we're all portugaled.

[Clockwork]

Brain scans are getting more and more advanced every day. Pretty soon they'll be able to just extract the information digitally. Then we're all portugaled.

Hells yeah, science bitches!

[Jubal]

In that report it says making friends with them takes time, I would think that this time would mean that most information on plots would be useless by the time they got that information.

The Senate committee were able to find precisely 0 cases of this occurring - there was no point in the whole CIA torture programme where evidence gained from it stopped an imminent threat.

Even if there was no torture being done at all, they'd still say we were torturing them.

It's not just about the insides of radical networks - ordinary people across the world are being radicalised as a result of this stuff. These aren't people who are totally shut off by any means; the evidence of torture has undoubtedly helped fuel anti-Western policies, politicians, and terrorist recruitment on a much wider scale than might otherwise have been possible. Sure, once people are IN a closed-information network it's hard to get out, but that's not so much the issue I'm getting at.

[Clockwork]

If any sane person is radicalized by the fact that we torture people and that's enough to make them blow us up then they're traitors anyway.

The Senate committee can't find anything because the real goings on aren't disclosed. This is only surface level intel we get, if you believe that we get to know the full extent of the interrogation methods/subjects/whatever then I would say that's a little naive.

Say you've just been in a skirmish against (everything is hypothetical and slightly ridiculous, but I hope it illustrates a point) the IRA. You capture one guy that hid in a bathroom as you were doing a floor sweep. However these guys have three of your SAS buddies who were injured by an IED who you assume have either been killed or taken somewhere. You have probably only a couple of hours at most to get this guy to talk. Making friends will take too long, so you shoot out one of his kneecaps and remove the nails from three fingers all the while asking where they were heading tonight and if they've seen any other of your guys. That might just get you an answer, even if it's not the one you're looking for at least you've done all you could for your mates.

[Jubal]

If any sane person is radicalized by the fact that we torture people and that's enough to make them blow us up then they're traitors anyway.

You can't be a traitor to a country you don't belong to. Also, it's not that simple as I'm sure you know. People aren't binaristically either "let's blow up the west" or "we love the west". Modern war has public opinion as a major battleground, and we need that on our side. The suicide bomber is the tip of an iceberg - a broader culture of mistrust and dislike of the western powers and what they stand for, which provides starting fuel for those who seek to turn that into radicalism, and which hurts us and our ability to manoeuvre on the international stage. And which, if we stand for beating up people senseless for "information" that has never been proven useful compared to alternative methods, actually might not be wholly unreasonable.

The Senate committee can't find anything because the real goings on aren't disclosed. This is only surface level intel we get, if you believe that we get to know the full extent of the interrogation methods/subjects/whatever then I would say that's a little naive.

So you're just going to trust the people who stand to benefit most from defending the system to say that torture is effective? Somewhat naive on your part, methinks. Also, you really think the CIA wouldn't have provided a single smoking gun if they actually had a load? To stop the utter damnation this report has brought upon them? I find that pretty hard to believe.

Your example I won't go into further, firstly because no, I don't think it's acceptable to use torture in that situation (treating captives as human beings is a pretty basic article of war), but also because we're discussing counter-terrorism not battlefield operations, and you've described the latter.

[Othko97]

Modern war has public opinion as a major battleground, and we need that on our side. The suicide bomber is the tip of an iceberg - a broader culture of mistrust and dislike of the western powers and what they stand for, which provides starting fuel for those who seek to turn that into radicalism, and which hurts us and our ability to manoeuvre on the international stage. And which, if we stand for beating up people senseless for "information" that has never been proven useful compared to alternative methods, actually might not be wholly unreasonable.

The war on terror is a war for public opinion, hence why our forces spend a lot of time liaising with the local population and helping them out. We want the people of the country to feel like our troops are stabilising the region rather than bringing in more conflict. Our main objective is not to kill all  the terrorists, rather it is to prevent more people becoming terrorists. This is mostly done by showing people that the West is better than the terrorist organisations, e.g. not torturing people, not blowing up busy streets and so on.