Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Sebastian:

A question that has gone largely unanswered is what level of interrogation is acceptable. We know that the level of abuse that occurred in Abu Ghraib was unacceptable, but as of yet, I’ve heard little of what IS acceptable. Its easy to say that the manner of interrogation used at Abu Ghraib goes beyond what we should allow—-that’s not even in question, though it seems to remain the focus of many.

I have heard the pat answer—-follow the Geneva Convention—- from many, but many dont even know what the GC covers. Most dont know that if followed to the letter of the law, the Geneva Convention prohibits any type of ridicule of prisoners, and even goes so far as to set out a pay scale for prisoners. Under these strict guidelines, no information would be forthcoming, which is also unacceptable.

I personally am against torture, but I’m not at all against aggressive interrogation techniques, which will save lives. The idea of using sleep deprivation, for example, does not meet my definition of “torture”, though it seems to meet it for those who want to be opposed to nearly anything our government does.

If we handle prisoners with kid gloves, and use virtually no interrogation techniques other than merely asking nicely if they will hand over their information, we surely wont get any information.

Its far easier to rail at those who define a policy, especially if you dont have to present a policy of your own. Here is an opportunity for you to detail out just what you would and would not allow, and how you would be successful in getting the kind of information that is necessary in a war zone.

So, the question remains: What interrogation techniques would you support?

(By the way, Sebastian, this post is not intended solely for you, but rather as a question to those who say our current interrogation techniques are wrong.)

Hey joe. Do you have any statistics on the value of information gained by torture?

It seems to me we’ve been getting far more information from these guy’s cell-phone address books, computers, and papers found on them. I know that in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, they’ve been getting good intel from prisoners by having moderate imams convince them that what they were led to do is against Islam. They sing like canaries. And I don’t think the FBI beat Moussaoui near death to get him to talk.

So my question is: Are aggressive interrogation techniques even necessary? If so, under what conditions?

It seems to me that torture or even “aggressive interrogation techniques” are acts of desperation. Is America desperate? I don’t think so. Apparently many of the administration’s defenders think we are.

-Cf

So you see, there really is a downside to supporting a senator with radical, neoconfederate beliefs. Lie down with the dogs, wake up with fleas.

Speaking of the Geneva Convention, it is funny how this admin still invokes when it is useful to them. Reminds me of a line from Plato about laws being cobwebs that are only strong enough to restrain the weak.

I think that Alan Dershowitz’ proposal to legalize torture is the most sound solution, really.

Woody Mena:

What are neoconfederate beliefs?

Thanks!

Lee:

I dont have any relevant statistics, but I think its safe to assume that intelligence gathering is a valuable asset in fighting terrorism. We know that we needed a better ability to process information before 9-11, but lets not simply assume that information gathering is an administrative task. There is always a human side to it that is incredibly important.

Are aggressive interrogation tactics necessary, you ask? Lets just take a hypothetical example: Put yourself in the shoes of a lieutenant who is ordering his men into the field on a mission. You have limited knowledge currently, but you do have a prisoner who knows where the bad guys are, what weaponry they have etc. What information would YOU want to have, knowing that the life of your men might depend on that information?

Now, I’ve already said that torture is not acceptable (though if a madman had my daughter as hostage, I would torture anyone to find her), but aggressive interrogation—-certainly.

Christopher: if interrogating prisoners is a sign of desperation, then our police force, our military, our intelligence agencies, and our special forces have been desperate for years and years and years. What a silly statement you posted.

Joe, the problem with overly traumatic interrogation methods is that people are willing to be lead by us to end their pain and suffering. They are willing to name names, to name anybody just to get the torture to stop. Problem comes if we are interrogating an innocent person. Then we get a witch hunt phenomena where you get a cascade of false accusations given to us by people who are giving those false confessions out of a sense of self preservation.

That’s the practical downside to what we were doing. The political downside is that expose ourselves to charges of hypocrisy, to charges that we only protect and value the freedom of our own people. If we give that impression enough, cooperation in the middle east with us will be a thing of the past, and we will be forced to play the bad guy every time we protect our interests.

In the end the best interrogation methods are not those that batter at people’s will, but rather those that slip past people’s defense, and which provide clues to the value of the information we’re being given, as well as the information itself. It is not only important to identify those who know something, but also to screen out those who simply don’t.

Are aggressive interrogation tactics necessary, you ask? Lets just take a hypothetical example: Put yourself in the shoes of a lieutenant who is ordering his men into the field on a mission. You have limited knowledge currently, but you do have a prisoner who knows where the bad guys are, what weaponry they have etc. What information would YOU want to have, knowing that the life of your men might depend on that information?

If you can get such information in no other possible way, then that’s that. But otherwise there is no good in compromising one’s integrity and humanity for information that may not even be true. Worse, you may end up torturing your own assumptions out of that person, and make the same mistake you otherwise would have made.

In the end, it’s best to keep an open mind and clean hands, especially in a culture prone to view westerners as barbarians. we need to be undermining stereotypes, not fulfilling them.

When did Dershowitz propose this? I just heard him talk last night and during the Q&A he said Abu Ghraib wasn’t “clearly illegal”. He mentioned how he thought it was a lot different than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He seemed to say it was wrong (and pointless) for the former and that there was a gray area for the latter (when lives could be saved).

> Christopher: if interrogating prisoners is a
> sign of desperation, then our police force, our
> military, our intelligence agencies, and our
> special forces have been desperate for years
> and years and years. What a silly statement you
> posted.

Please actually read what I wrote before calling it “silly”.

…torture or even “aggressive interrogation techniques”…

That’s hardly the same as mere “interrogation”.

I am perfectly aware that there are interrogation techniques that aren’t conducted like a chat with Charlie Rose. I know full well that American police detectives legally use deception and certain forms of psychological abuse to acheive their investigative goals. I know a CIA interrogator personally (someone with 40+ years experience with KGB captives and Soviet defectors) who has legitimately had to cross the line with many of his prisoners and detainees - and he is outraged by the Abu Graib abuses - not merely because they are inhumane, but because they are both inhumane and, most likely, useless.

I am also sure that sometimes our military is genuinely desperate and uses torture in the field; for example, they might catch a guy who just planted a bomb somewhere and they need to discover the location within minutes. They may beat they guy up in ways that glaringly violate the Geneva Convention.

I am willing to accept all of this. None of this strikes me as the actions of a desperate country.

When commentators and Senators openly defend the widespread and systematic use of such techniques, as Lott, Inhofe, and Limbaugh have brazenly done, it bespeaks a national sense of desperation. It makes us look to the whole world that we are unable to cope with the terrorist threat while still sticking to our superior national and cultural values (yes, liberal me beleives that America’s national and cultural values are superior, or at least I did until Lott & company started yapping).

The abuses themselves were bad enough in soiling America’s international reputation. Do we really need loudmouthed apologists for the abuse as well?

-Cf

I especially liked when the Bush Admin. was screaming unfair at the Iraqi army going against the Geneva Conventions by blending in with civilians and such. Turns out they were deciding to ignore them for Iraqi prisioners around the same time. When will they get it? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Actually blending in with civilians technically exempts a combatant from the protections of most of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners.

There is a whole body of research on negative vs. positive reinforcement techniques and their effectiveness. Torture works sometimes, only when you need the information immediately and you press intensely with pain and threat of death to get it. The person either cracks or doesn’t. If they crack, you don’t know if what they spew is accurate because most often you don’t know if you have a person before you who actually has useful information to spew. Thus, the reliability of information received under torture is close to non-existent in most cases.

Educational and psychological research and studies show positive reinforcements are by far more likely to elicit desired behavior than punishment. So, the disconnect in the CIA and DoD on this issue is quite remarkable.

Wow, I am glad that I live in a civilized country.

I find it interesting that people who espouse the deplorable decline of values represented by the idea of situational marality now espouse that torture is okey dokey as long as it’s “necessary.”

War is ugly, irrational and abusive by it’s very nature. Yes, atrocities will occur when you subject people to the situation of terror and and domination in the grizly realities of blowing up other people.

Dershowitz offered the argument several years ago that torture should be legalized and codified as opposed to the way it occured then and today. We pretend it doesn’t occur, but the military culture and power elite condone it, in secret.

We are an imperial warrior culture, that is so severly in denial that the Abu Ghraib photos “shocked” the Nation. Now you all know why the world hates Americans. We supply evil people with weapons of mass destruction, we foment revolutions for economic gain. We ignore mass starvation and
genocide in the name of strategy.

There are positve things in America. There are good hearted Americans, but please don’t belabour the point that we are good and terrorists are evil.

Mahatma Gahndi overthrew the British empire without invading, bombing or torturing the British. Perhaps we could learn something from the man.

Actually blending in with civilians technically exempts a combatant from the protections of most of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners.

Not quite. The Geneva Convention protections are not removed until a competent military tribunal determines that the combatants are in breech. The President does not get to decide this status for a large class of people.

So, until a military tribunal determines what you note, Geneva Conventions apply.

Stephen:

You used the words “overly traumatic interrogation methods” while I used aggressive interrogation methods. Note that I said torture is unacceptable. I also asked in my first post—which not coincidentally NO ONE has answered—what interrogation methods would be acceptable to people. Dont put words in my mouth—-I have yet to say that pain is acceptable, as you suggested. I dont disagree with your idea of using methods that “slip past people’s defenses”, and I’d even suggest that something like sleep deprivation would qualify in that vein. I think you read into my statement what you might have expected to read, rather than what was there.

Christopher: I guess it really depends on what “aggressive interrogation” is, doesnt it? Which is particularly why I asked the question about what people would find acceptable. I note that you havent responded to that, but rather have focused on what is NOT acceptable. I already stated that something like sleep deprivation, in my opinion, would be acceptable, as would temperature modulation (the body is weakened by randomly interspersed temperature changes. I have not condoned torture, nor do it now. You seem to equate torture and aggressive interrogation to a large extent, while I am suggesting that parts of the Geneva Convention go so far as to make a Charlie Rose interview appear to be a form of torture.

Once again, I’ll simply ask you…..what levels of interrogation would you find acceptable?

Joebagodonuts, what is wrong with the Geneva Convention definitions? My own feedback is that treatment which is designed, or to a normal rational person of our country would be viewed, to leave physical or psychological scars, should be defined as torture. A very broad definition, but, one which I believe our own troops would agree with at the hands of an enemy which chose to abide by rules of conduct. Not being a specialist in torture, however, my reading of the Geneva Convention rules decades ago, seemed to be adequate.

David:

I knew as soon as I sent the post out that my comments on the Geneva Convention would raise someone’s eyebrows. I am glad, however, that you continue to acknowledge my posts. Below is a section of the GC (Art. 17), which I’ll address:

“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. “

I agree with the prohibition of physical and mental torture, but when it continues on to include “any form of coercion” or any unpleasant…treatment”, that is where I find it too lenient. I suppose it depends on what the definitions of those are, but in today’s world, there are many viewpoints on coercion.

Unpleasant treatment, as a term, can mean almost whatever someone wants it to mean. For me, being confined in a prison cell, eating prison food, and being allowed only certain times and forms of exercise would be unpleasant. According to the Geneva Convention, that would be a violation. But is that the same as torture?? Of course not.

David, please understand that I have spoken repeatedly out against torture and the kind of sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. I’ve defined interrogation techniques that I think are acceptable, but still, as of yet, no one from the “other side” of the coin has been willing or able to say what THEY think is acceptable.

Is asking a question of a POW 25 times considered coercion, and therefore in violation of the GC? Is it acceptable to offer visitation rights to a POW in return for information, since that in effect is coercion? Is waking a POW in the middle of the night for questioning considered a form of sleep deprivation that would qualify as “unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment” and therefore in violation?

Under a strict interpretation of the Geneva Convention, each of the above could be considered a violation.

Lastly, are you aware of Article 60 of the Geneva Convention which states, “The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power…” Now pardon me for being so darn cruel, but I don’t advocate PAYING prisoners while they are in custody. Perhaps you have a different viewpoint on that issue.

When I say “slip past people’s defenses”, I mean, we play mind games, we use words and phrases, subjects and points of pride to push them into slips of tongue, to make them willing to talk. I’m talking about picking the locks of their brains, and making it to where they don’t even know whether they’ve told us something important or not. In the end it’s all a matter of psychology. Torture is just a blunt and crude way to go about it.

> Once again, I’ll simply ask you…..what
> levels of interrogation would you find
> acceptable?

How the hell am I supposed to answer that? I’m not a psychologist.

I do know that the techniques we choose to use should be the kind of techniques we aren’t afraid to announce to the world, without shame, that we are using against the bad guys. And we should only use them on people who are likely to be able to provide useful information.

From what I understand, I think that sleep deprivation is acceptable for certain cases. My CIA friend used it throughout the Cold War.

-Cf

your right, we should just become one big anarchy… o wait, were against that… oops

Are aggressive interrogation tactics necessary, you ask? Lets just take a hypothetical example: Put yourself in the shoes of a lieutenant who is ordering his men into the field on a mission. You have limited knowledge currently, but you do have a prisoner who knows where the bad guys are, what weaponry they have etc. What information would YOU want to have, knowing that the life of your men might depend on that information?

joe, I think we may be close in our views on this. As I hinted in my post, I think there are some instances, mostly where time is of the essence and you have an unprocessed prisoner who knows what’s on the other side of the hill.

I still think that outside the heat of battle, torture and aggressive interrogation probably depending on the actual definition) have no place. There are psychological (and chemical, I think) methods that are more effective.

An example would be, some of the perps of the Bali bombing were detained and convinced by moderate imams that what they did was against Islam. They propmtly testified against Abu Bashir, the head of Jemaah Islamiah.

It seems that we’re basically trying to define the line for where torture begins and ends here, with this talk of torture vs aggressive interrogation. It may be helpful to consider things in a slightly different light to get some useful answers to this:

If it were the other side doing it to our soldiers in order to get information, what would we consider unacceptable? What actions done to our soldiers held as prisoners of war would anger us, and make us want to retaliate? That should, approximately, show us where the line for how to treat our own prisoners should be maintained, IMO. After all, wasn’t that pretty much the original rationale behind the geneva convention?

For the record, I think I agree generally with what Stephen is saying about picking the locks of people’s brains but not by crude torture. I also agree with Lee that sometimes there are reasons to take drastic measures, where time is of the essence. (For instance, a girl is buried alive and will die in 12 hours if not found….go ahead and do anything to the bastards who put here there in order to learn of the location).

Christopher, just for the record: How does it feel to be advocating for an interrogation method—-sleep deprivation—that has been considered abusive and has subsequently been banned?

“May 14 (Bloomberg) — The top U.S. commander in Iraq banned prisoner interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation…”

And here I thought you were FOR the Geneva Convention, but you dispelled that notion by advocating sleep deprivation.

“From what I understand, I think that sleep deprivation is acceptable for certain cases. My CIA friend used it throughout the Cold War.”

-Cf

You see, its very easy to simply rail against the decisions of others, but it gets pretty dicey when you have to put your OWN decisions out there. Thanks for finally giving some insight to what you think is acceptable interrogation.

Joe, I am fairly sure that, despite the order, such techniques will continue to be used, as they have been for decades, by trained intelligence officers in appropriate - and covert - situations. It has presumably only been banned from use by the military in “prisoner interrogations”, which is precisely what the problem appears to have been at Abu Graib and perhaps even more pervasively throughout our military operations: that drastic interrogation techniques, and even torture, were employed by non-trained military personnel as standard practice.

If a top-level intelligence agent is using such techniques, for example, on a top-level Iraqi research official who is likely to know the location of hidden records of nuclear weapon research (or, in the old days, if the technique was being used on a Soviet colonel who likely knew exactly how many nukes were currently deployed in Khazakstan) then I might understand the use. If, however, it’s being used haphazardly to soften up random prisoners for eventual interrogation, then I’m not so sure. My concern is that this is the case. In any event, it appears to be the case to the world, and that’s bad enough.

I am fairly sure we are in agreement about the legality of the sleep deprivation issue, except that you seem to think I am a hypocrite for holding my position. My only point is that it is not always appropriate. I imagine you feel the same.

Anyway, I’m not even sure that sleep deprivation is a violation of the Geneva Convention. In fact, the May 14 Bloomberg article you quoted says as much in the very next paragraph, which you accidently ommitted:

“Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez revised the rules yesterday even after he determined that most of the interrogation techniques didn’t violate the Geneva Convention on prisoner-of-war treatment, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said at a press briefing.”

Admittedly this is only General Sanchez’s determination, but I’ve heard similar arguments elsewhere.

-Cf

Joe, your arguments themselves are arguing for practices you say you’re personally against. My impression is that you and him a closer than you’d like to admit. I’ll come right out and say that sometime torture is necessary, and that if we’re talking about and individual terrorist being tortured in the hour of our need to get the information, I would not be too critical.

The problem here is when the incidental justification becomes the institutional excuse. When the desperate measure becomes the standard practice. The line becomes: we do this to save the lives of American soldiers, so don’t object. Meaning it gets accepted without the critical analysis of whether it’s garnering the results it’s meant to. Or of what effects it will have if things get out.

I side with Sebastian in opposing a culture of justification for torture. I side with him in saying that we do ourselves no favors with the arab and muslim communities by being so callous about human rights abuses, especially given our stated purposes. We can argue the near-theological questions of what justifies torture, but we should be clear that there are few justifications in any case, much less this one, where such acts are a blow to our bonafides as the evangelists of freedom.

Stephen:

I have no problem whatsoever agreeing with you. Not hard to admit at all when its the case. In this case, I simply put forth the postulate that aggressive interrogation can be a good and necessary tactic. I’ve said all along that torture is not acceptable, though I agree with your assessment regarding the desperation of the situation.

Unfortunately, there are too many out there who are equating techniques like sleep deprivation and sexual sodomy as both being torture, when its obvious that they are different things. Thats where I drew the line, and asked people to pony up their opinions of what actually IS acceptable.

Christopher: I’m sure you arent a hypocrite, and I generally agree with your position. As I see it, you agree with torture only in the most necessary of situations, but dont want it to become a standard as it seemed to in Abu Ghraib (though a lot of what people were horrified at was not all that bad—the sleep dep and the like, while the sexual abuse was horrible of course).

It bothers me when people focus so much on what we as Americans do wrong, while minimizing what other countries do as the norm. Its hard being perfect, but some people seem to be willing to accept nothing less. While that doesnt make them unpatriotic, it does mean they hold America to such a far higher standard of expectation that it is virtually impossible to ever please them.

Jarin makes the most salient point, what would be acceptable to you if say you or your daughter were in that chair being interrogated?

The belief that you can intimidate people into submission, and therefore root out the “truth” bears a striking resemblance to the ethic of the Salem witch hunts.

Where is the morality in this behavior? I frankly don’t understand how someone can look themselves in the mirror and condone forcing confessions from a prisoner. Trickery and fact checking sure, using wit to root out truth without threat or intimidation but “aggressive interrogation?” That’s just phoney, self deception to avoid the label of torture. What makes you different from a terrorist then? A golden halo above your head? God is on your side?

I’m very dissappointed in the hairsplitting and equivocation that has appeared here. What exactly does America stand for, if not freedom from intimidation and threat?

> What are neoconfederate beliefs?

“Neoconfederate” is a euphemism for white supremacist.

Since sleep deprivation keeps being brought up as an acceptable technique for interrogating prisoners, I feel the need to point out certain things.

1. Sleep deprivation inhibits your ability to function properly, in some cases akin to intoxication. US law has acknowledged this in some states by passing laws against driving if you are suffering from a dangerous lack of sleep.

2. One of the symptoms of sleep deprivation if taken far enough is hallucination.

3. Sleep deprivation also makes you more suggestible and able to be influenced by others to believe things which are not true. It is a common technique used in formal behavior-modification (“brain-washing”) programs and cultic environments.

Does this really sound like a state you want people to be in when trying to get reliable information from them? Personally, I wouldn’t trust information gotten from a prisoner that had this done to them.

Its hard being perfect, but some people seem to be willing to accept nothing less. While that doesnt make them unpatriotic, it does mean they hold America to such a far higher standard of expectation that it is virtually impossible to ever please them.

And rightly so.

Woody- I just can’t leave that alone….

Do you feel that Sen. Lott is a white supremacist because of his support for the late Sen. Thurmond?

Do you feel that Sen. Biden, who eulogized Thurmond in the First Baptist Church in Columbia, SC (home of the succession vote), is also a neoconfederate?

How about Sen. Byrd, and by extension Sen. Dodd?

Sounds like there are a lot of fleas in that old Senate chamber…..

The police belong to power. Power almost always trumps truth. OJ, Clinton, Bush, Lay, Cheney, DNA technology prove that every day.

George,

He said that the country would have avoided “all these problems” if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. The whole point of Thurmond’s campaign was to perpetuate white supremacy.

Beyond that one comment, he has longstanding ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group whose purpose is to “speak out for white European-Americans.” The CCC evolved from White Citizens’ Councils that were organized to resist desegregation.

joebagodunuts said:
“Below is a section of the GC (Art. 17), which I’ll address: …, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.”

I agree that coercion of any kind is a useless phrase and renders the article technically unenforceable. Your point is quite valid IMO.

I’ve defined interrogation techniques that I think are acceptable, but still, as of yet, no one from the “other side” of the coin has been willing or able to say what THEY think is acceptable.

I have written elsewhere here at WB about research which demonstrates that positive reinforcement if far more productive in altering behavior than negative reinforcement. Thus, if bribing a POW to get information can be construed as coercion, the GC article is useless in regard to enforcement. When noone is willing to respect the rules, the rules are useless. Again, your point is well made.

Lastly, are you aware of Article 60 of the Geneva Convention which states, “The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power…” Now pardon me for being so darn cruel, but I don’t advocate PAYING prisoners while they are in custody. Perhaps you have a different viewpoint on that issue.

If I recall correctly, that article came out of WWII mindset in which the victor was entitled to reparations which would include the pay to POW’s. The concept was idealistic in its time, but, the intent was to afford POW’s certain freedoms which money can buy, even in a prison. It was a hopelessly idealistic concept, noble as it may have appeared at the time.

We find ourselves in total agreement on this issue, joebagodonuts, save perhaps for my prescription for incorporating positive reinforcements as the first and primary method of securing information. Military hardassess would find such a concept alien however, given the emotional investment in destroying the enemy as opposed to using the enemy against itself. There are a number of very bright and intelligent generals and admirals, but, one can only expect from them that which their education and training has provided them.

IMO, a whole lot more human psychology should be incorporated into the military curricula for officer training, since, small numbers of captureds are likely to be the mainstay of conflict in the future as opposed to massive divisions of enenmy artillery, troops, land, sea and aircraft.

David:

Glad to see that we can find wide areas of agreement.

I’m also in favor of positive reinforcement to a degree. There is a prison in Boston, I believe, that incorporated unique ideas in regard to lighting and design, intended to make the prison much more of a “home” to the prisoners. Now, I’m not in favor of coddling prisoners, but if we look at the results—less violence, fewer prisoner/guard conflicts, etc—-then we can see the pragmatism.

If positive reinforcement yields better information which saves the lives of our young soldiers, then I’m all for it.

Thanks Woody:

As someone who knew Sen. Thurmond personnaly I can say without a doubt that he was not a white supremacist. I don’t believe that Trent Lott, Joe Biden, R. Byrd are either. I just thought that was a very odd political label to tag on Lott based on his stance on the prison abuse issue.

My father served in Vietnam. He told me once what he thought about war crimes. He asked me if I knew how many of the prisoners that were returned to U.S. were ordinary enlisted men. I told him that I didn’t know. He said that the number was close to zero and they often found positions with all of the men who were there killed. My point is that the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to Americans only to those that Americans fight.