India to terrorists: Resistance is futile

Vee have vays of making you talk. Like making you eat your faworite ice cream wery wery fast!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Democracy snobs - those supremacists who don't celebrate the diversity of other peoples and cultures, and who think the US can preach at the world about how things should be - won't like how the world's largest democracy is dealing with a captured Islamist terrorist.

But just as we can learn from Mexico about sound immigration policy, India has some things to show us about how to protect a democracy under attack.

The Times of London reports that Indian authorities, using their country's accepted police practices and laws, will conduct "narcoanalysis" on the sole known surviving terrorist involved in last week's murderous rampage in Mumbai. The practice involves administering a harmless "truth serum" to help establish the facts.

"Advanced" democracies like the US and UK once had the same practice, but no longer do, so they are better than everyone else, the thinking goes among post-democracy elites. Better to set terrorists free to kill our citizens yet again, than risk hurting the terrorists' feelings or poking them with a medical needle.

But there's good news on the other side of the world: An Indian police official says that the narcoanalysis is working like a fabled Hindu charm. About the terrorist, the official tells the Times, "He resisted at first, but soon he began to talk. We have our techniques, but we don't disclose our tactics."

Criticize India all you want about how it handled the Mumbai terrorist incident before and during the attack. But India doesn't have Miranda Rights and it doesn't need them. It has its own techniques to preserve its democracy. We should not be so chauvinistic against other democratic cultures. India certainly has a lot of answers to our counterterrorism dilemmas. Its methods send a signal that, unlike in America where mass-murdering terrorists can count on American trial lawyers to fight for their freedom, resistance in India is futile.

That's an important political message to send the world.

Perhaps the US can persuade India to host Club Gitmo before the Center for Constitutional Rights, Levick Strategic Communications and other enemy agents get Washington to set more Guantanamo-based terrorists free.

http://www.politicalwarfare.org/

Looks like my favorite cocktail mixer is working. Anyone want to defend this guy's "civil rights?"

Not a change. He has no rights. As far as I am concerned he should not be classed as a human being, merely property of the state.

Torture is pointless as the answers are forthcoming to stop the pain. Reducing people's ability to lie is completely different - although of course the answers should not be taken as gospel.

The problem here is that India doesn't have convenient bases overseas where they can ignore all laws, unlike "Advanced" Democracies such as the US.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Looks like my favorite cocktail mixer is working. Anyone want to defend this guy's "civil rights?"

---

I can't say the urge to do so is overwhelming, no. But the danger of curtailing civil rights in the interests of short-term expediency is that we lose sight of the bigger picture, and what begins as an exceptional measure eventually becomes routine. If police powers originally introduced with the stated intent of only being used in the most serious terrorism cases are five years later being used to arrest opposition MPs for obtaining leaked government documents, how can we have any confidence that the use of such "truth serums" would not be similarly abused?

I heard that Truth Serums are good for them terrorists. Makes them want to socialize a lot. I like when they socialize.

Ok, only people indiscrimnately shooting at police and civilians with AK-53's and using grenades can have truth serum used on them...

I understand the "thin end of the wedge" but I feel there's plenty of wiggle room here.

~:smoking:

If these clowns were supposed to be a special forces resistance is futile indeed.

I don’t get it, are you saying that it is ok to forget their human rights and that what India is doing is good or that India should be extending more rights to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I don’t get it, are you saying that it is ok to forget their human rights and that what India is doing is good or that India should be extending more rights to them?

---

It's not about what I'm saying, but about you.

Anyone who’s seen the abomination called “The Good Sheppard” should remember the scene where (a character looosly based on Nosenko) was given LSD to make him fess up. He ends up going on a “bad trip” out the window after a rant about teh eval military industrial complex. :hippie:

In India, the old standby sodium penethol is being used.

I report, you decide. :clown:

I think the Indian authorities should try the "If you continue being naughty, you'll get a lump of coal for Christmas" interrogaton tactic or maybe the warm milk and cookies treatment the the ACLU and many members on this board want the US to employ with our own misunderstood Islamic jihadists...

Lol @ "advanced democracies".

Lol @ "they're not human beings because they did very bad things".

Lol @ "putting people on acid trips can produce valuable counter-terrorism info".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Lol @ "putting people on acid trips can produce valuable counter-terrorism info".

---

Acid has been used a lot in psychiatry. Was frowned upon later but when people don't understand what's going on they are likely to tell the truth if only for a point of reference to hold onto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Acid has been used a lot in psychiatry. Was frowned upon later but when people don't understand what's going on they are likely to tell the truth if only for a point of reference to hold onto.

---

I too find it entertaining to listen to alcoholics and potheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I too find it entertaining to listen to alcoholics and potheads.

---

Using acid is really the same as denying someone sleep, nothing is scarier then losing your mind, being denied to sleep does that to you, and so does acid. People hold on to what they know, the consequences of talking becomes less important. It works.

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

Well if they are part of a bigger scheme they are either the stupid ones, or the really fanatical, both shouldn't be too hard get yapping when pressing the right buttons, especially while under the influence of acid. I don't know if you ever used acid but you aren't thinking clearly, he thought he did the right thing, stupid/fanatic -> be smarter/humiliate. That sounds bad but humiliation is only as bad as it is in the eye of the beholder, wouldn't feel that bad about destroying their self-image, why would I if their madness is a tool then use it. Don't get the revenge part of your post, how does giving him a little acid equal what has happened, it is a pretty disgusting thing that went on there, people have been tortured and killed without no reason at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

That’s what you have to do to get *anything* useful out of *any* interrogation. You subject the information received under serum to the same processes which yielded your “solid and effective intelligence.” Your logic is elliptical (almost circular :clown: ).

Yes drugging is a quick, crude, and dirty technique which *can* work. “Torture” ‘works’ as well (I don’t care what some people say); but is quicker, cruder, and dirtier than drugging. Quite often it is the refuge of the desperate who lack the time, temperament, and/or talent to conduct a proper interrogation. Not that I advocate such tactics, but I see the merits. Desperate times call for desperate needs; but do you want to be that desperate? What is necessary to avoid this situation? (rhetorical)

When so much is potentially at stake who can fault anyone for such actions?

I'm against torture, and I see forcefully administering drugs as such. That said, if they limit it to people like this, halting it isn't on top of my "to do" list.

India may not be my first choice, but I'd rather live there than in certain neighbouring countries :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Using so-called "truth serum" is hardly effective. My, how some like to believe that their revenge fantasies are also useful.

To get anything out of such an interrogation, one needs solid and effective intelligence to relate the disjointed rambling against. Then again, if one has solid and effective intelligence, you get far more from a standard interrogation through layered questioning and narrative traps.

And there's several good reasons why most people, given the option, prefer to live in "advanced democracies" - and a lot of them have to do with respect for human rights.

---

Are you sure torture doesn't yield results?

I have always learned that everybody will break under torture. Whether via drugs or physical enhanced interrogation. Me, I break already after my girlfriend plucks out two nosehairs with a pair of tweezers, and will publicly confess to everybody within shouting distance that I am Napoleon after just three beers.

Never mind what professionals could achieve. Wouldn't layered questioning and narrative traps combined with enhanced interogation techniques yield the best results? The two don't exclude each other.

I think there is a fair bit of wishful thinking involved in the argument that torture doesn't work. That it is invoked whenever the human rights argument seems to fail. (Adrian always insisted as well that torture doesn't work)

No method of interrogation, torturous or otherwise, is ever going to be completely effective. There are too many inherent limitations.

Does the subject really know what's going on? What they have been told is true and what they emphatically believe to be the case, may actually be incorrect. They will still reveal this "truth" under any form of interrogation. This is why detectives search so avidly for physical evidence -- what people see/know may or may not be in tune with what is the case.

Does the subject distort their answers to try to please the listener? If your lady-love asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" your answer may not be prompted by anything aside from a desire to avoid the potential for discomfort. This is one of the classic arguments against torture -- that any information is likely to be tainted by the tortured's desire to "please" his tormentors.

Does the method of interrogation itself run the risk of distorting or destroying the information? No drug performs the same in each and every subject. Suppose the medication wipes the memory you're trying to pry loose? Torture can cripple the subject's ability to communicate or kill them before they can answer anything.


However, with that important caveat, human history teaches us that interrogators can, eventually, break down almost anyone and get them to "talk." All sorts of methods work, some faster than others -- but most procedures which accelarate the pace at which a subject "breaks" carry greater risks that the information sought will be destroyed or distorted in some fashion. On a practical level, any interrogator has to assess just how important the timeliness of information acquisition is, recognizing the increased risks to securing that information that may be posed.

Morality approaches the whole thing on a different level, which I have set aside for this answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Are you sure torture doesn't yield results?

---

It yields results, just not very useful ones - unless you count the destruction of liberties and standards that have been fought for over centuries and that define us as civilised. If you count giving terrorism the victory it craves by proving us as animal as they, it yields results.

Seamus makes a powerfully reasoned argument. Getting someone to talk is easy - getting them to reveal useful facts is very hard, especially if they are telling you anything and everything. It takes a very well-drilled suspect to consciously counter facts, half-truths and counter-testimonies. Their clear-headed attempts to do so can be exploited - drug or pain addled responses cannot be connected.

There is no need to resort to torture/truth serums and suchlike because the necessity of proving the rambling thus obtained through better and more objective intelligence actually takes longer. One gains naught but vengeance through such methods.

Louis, the human rights argument never fails. It is not wishful thinking to argue that torture doesn't work. By its very nature, its use betrays everything civilisation stands for, so it doesn't work because its use destroys us, let alone the practical uselessness.

Brutalizing brutalizes the brutalizer.

And yields info of grey-value, at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Not a change. He has no rights. As far as I am concerned he should not be classed as a human being, merely property of the state.

---

I heard the same applies to jews, as far as certain people were concerned anyway.

I don't really see what's bad about a harmless truth serum, if people would lie less, how is that a bad thing?

at home: "Darling, do you think I'm fat?" - "Oh yes, very much so!"

illegal police interviews: "So how much is on your bank account that we could have, sir?" - "Minus 3521 dollars, good luck!"

politicians: "So how many of your promises do you think you can keep?" - "I don't know of any promises, but if you are talking about my lies..."

pirates: "How many illegally downloaded ships do you have on your personal home port?" - "A whole lot, just last week I torrented a merchant with ukrainian tanks in the cargo bay."

etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I heard the same applies to jews, as far as certain people were concerned anyway.

---

When were Jews running around with grenades, shooting indiscriminately? I missed that on the news!

Or were you drawing comparisons between two completely different things?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When were Jews running around with grenades, shooting indiscriminately? I missed that on the news!

---

Oh, according to the people who thought like this they were doing even worse things, the question is whether anything justifies not seeing a human as a human, what good are human rights that apply universally when you can just circumvent them by calling people non-human according to standards you invented? Now it's people running around with grenades shooting people indiscriminately, next year it's anyone owning a gun and ten years later it's everybody with a firewall on their PC that shuts the government out and of course all those animals eating these disgusting cookies that a human would never touch. :dizzy2:

Good old "thin end of the wedge" argument again, eh? Good to see how logically one can link gunning down people on camera to having a firewall.

It's fair to say that Germans can walk down this path a long way. I don't think that a similar event will lead form this. War with Pakistan is far more likely.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Good old "thin end of the wedge" argument again, eh? Good to see how logically one can link gunning down people on camera to having a firewall.

---

I wasn't linking it and I thought it was called the slippery slope argument but if you like to stop calling humans non-humans to circumvent human rights, go ahead, but it doesn't make you any better in my book.

“

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think there is a fair bit of wishful thinking involved in the argument that torture doesn't work

”
It doesn’t work always. Torture was used in Algeria and it did work in Algiers. However the price to pay was very high, politically and on human values which we are supposed to represent.
People will talk, but are you sure it will be the truth. Feed the enemies with what they expect to find and you will be ok.
Ex: A secret agent parachuted in occupied France caught by the Germans had always a double story e.g. I am a black marketer, then when confronted with his mistakes (eventually) said he was in fact living with a older woman and lived on her money, reason why he lied. The German got an answer according what they thought about the French and job done…
The fear of torture can as well prevent you to get what you want like this “I don’t remember his name not Delestrain the other one” jumping over the balcony with the 2 SS guards and
Then, in this case what serum or torture will provide we don’t know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I think the Indian authorities should try the "If you continue being naughty, you'll get a lump of coal for Christmas" interrogaton tactic or maybe the warm milk and cookies treatment the the ACLU and many members on this board want the US to employ with our own misunderstood Islamic jihadists...

---

You know most experienced intellegence people say that somewhat "kinder" methods work much better then anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Louis, the human rights argument never fails. It is not wishful thinking to argue that torture doesn't work. By its very nature, its use betrays everything civilisation stands for, so it doesn't work because its use destroys us, let alone the practical uselessness.

---

I'm afraid I was a bit sloppy. With 'whenever the human rights argument fails' I meant something like 'whenever the argument falls on deaf ears'.

Let me divide your arguments into three: a) Torture doesn't yield better results, b) torture destroys a democracy, drags it down along a path to the level of its opponents, c) torture shuldn't be used because of human rights.

I agree that torture shouldn't be used by civilised societies. C is a sufficient argument for me. Me debating B and C are for the sake of argument itself, and for the problem that if they do not hold, the case against torture is undermined. If the debate about torture centers around 'it does/it doesn't work', and it is shown that torture can, in fact, yield results virtually unobtainable in another way, then we have a problem.
Just as in a similar fashion, rock-solid arguments about the intrinsic value of the natural world and the unsustainability of our society are constantly undermined by excessive claims about cuddly Polar bears being on the brink of extinction because of global warming.


I agree with C. I have some reservations about B. I still doubt A:
Seamus and Brenus make some excellent points. In an indirect way, in my previous post I tried to argue that it wouldn't take a whole lot for me to confess to being Napoleon.
Torture is not the best interogation technique. Maybe the use of torture will on the whole provide even provide worse intelligence. Nonetheless, I still think there are instances where it will yield results that are next to impossible to achieve otherwise. Six youths burglared a house here last week. Five were caught, after being recognised. They insist to the police that they have absolutely no clue who the sixth person is. I bet I could beat the name out of them remarkably quickly. Also, all of the pitfalls, all of the clever counter techniques, all of the false confessions, of torture, do not vanish with normal interrogation. When applied smartly and prudently, I think torture can yield excellent intelligence.

Quote:

---

Torture was used in Algeria and it did work in Algiers.

---

It did indeed, and at too great a cost, in a win a battle to lose the war kind of way. But it did provide intelligence which would probably not have been obtained through other means.


Argument B, or 'Brutalizing brutalizes the brutalizer'.
But can democracies not be undermined by crime, destabilised by terrorism, threatened by violence as well? A democracy shouldn't firebomb cities anymore than it uses torture. Nonetheless, there are instances where bombing your enemy will yield a positive net result for the preservation of democracy.
The 'ticking bomb' scenario is often invoken in this regard. Let's apply it to Mumbay. The terrorist attacks lasted days. What if one terrorist was caught alive not after, but during the attacks? Use smart interrogation techniques to catch inconsistencies in his information? Or use any means at your disposal to retrieve information? Unless it is conclusively proven that torture will never yield useful information, I am not sure abstaining from torture for the sake of preserving democratic stability is a strong argument when a grave terrorist assault can undermine democratic stability even moreso.


Which really leaves me only with argument C. A democracy is founded upon the inalieable sanctity of all human beings. Torture has no place in it.

So in this case the suggested application is not to retrieve "vital" intelligence , neither is it considered reliable as a means of gathering information , it is banned in other countries for medical as well as ethical and practical reasons ....
So does anyone want to defend Indias nonsense ?
Or perhaps someone might like to claim that Waller isn't a conspiracy nut who makes crazy claims and invents quotes for use in his blogs .