Trying to keep a secret - a hypothesis

You're an advance element troop that has been captured just prior to D-day 1941. You know the attack will occur some time within the next few days. The SS tortures you - if you divulge the information it could mean the deaths of tens of thousand of allied lives, or even the failure of the invasion.

Do you give in - because of the pain? Or, swallow it as the true patriot you are?

:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

Then again, you are a terrorist that knows the plan to blow a nuclear plan or chemical factory, drive a freightor loaded with "spent" nuclear fuel into a port with explosives, knows the where abouts of Osama (3 hours ago), etc.

What pain can you maintain? And then, what BS will you create to redirect the attention from your mates?

Eisenhower created the Military Code of Conduct, after the Korean conflict (war for some). He did so because of the conduct of most of the soldiers that had been captured by the Chinese. See, the China guys started out with straight torture - but, what they found out is --- if you give a crumb to someone, a bit of bread for informing on their comrade - but don't harm the comrad? Well, what you get is cooperation. It may not be genuis - but it is devisive. [The men that were POWs when put on a room (library, pool tables, etc) just sat there - no one conversed, no one played pool - they might read, but mostly ... they just sat.]

How much pain can you take to keep a secret? Long enough to justify Dubya's call for torture?

:balloon2:

Hmm..

I imagine(and expect) that the American military will do whatever it can to retrieve information that will save American lives, and the terrorists will do everything they can to prevent that information from getting out.

The solution? Well I know what I would do if I had the chance with one of those thugs... :boxing:

Edit.. d-day was '44

Quote:

---

How much pain can you take to keep a secret? Long enough to justify Dubya's call for torture?

---

What call for torture? Or is this yet another of your 'light on facts and actual knowledge' rants? :rolleyes:

Crazed Rabbit

You don't have a choice.

Torture has been guaranteed to get you to talk since mediaeval times. Modern militaries work on the basis that if sensitive information is captured, the enemy will know it in detail in a couple of days maxmimum - usually the default is "assume they know now".

The best that can be done is to provide misinformation. This is the thrust of anti-interrogation training - give information that will satisfy the torturers but innaccurate enough that minimises impact. Like saying 1941 instead of 1944 - sounds like a simple slip. :wink:

But don't think you can be a hero.

I would make as convincing a lie as I could and then if they don't believe me plead and beg and look pathetic until they did. Hopefully it would work. After all, if they were going to kill me anyway it wouldn't make any difference what I told them.

I just hope that my would be torturers don't read the backroom. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hepcat

I would make as convincing a lie as I could and then if they don't believe me plead and beg and look pathetic until they did. Hopefully it would work. After all, if they were going to kill me anyway it wouldn't make any difference what I told them.

I just hope that my would be torturers don't read the backroom. :sweatdrop:

---

It would make a difference to you, in that, if the didn't believe you, you'd probably get tortured a lot more. I'm sure its pretty hard to act pathetic after having your thumb in a thumbscrew and your balls electrocuted for the 100th time.

- I often wonder how many members of this board are working directly/indirectly for intelligence agencies. Please write you names below so I can report...
I mean... so I feel safer, yeah safer.:oops:

I believe modern special forces have system for dealing with this. Beforehand they agree the order in which they'll release information under torture. So something on day 1, something on day 2, maybe the correct day 1 info on day 3, etc.

Torture will get you to talk...period...

it will get you to talk even if you don´t know anything....You´ll just make something up to make it stop.

Break immediately, co-operate from the start. I don't care for my country enough to actually get tortured, die, sure, but tortured, no way, man.

Then try to feed them as much misinformation as possible, while keeping to the truth. So, for D-Day, give them the correct date, but put it a hundred kilometers to the left of the actual location. Give them them sligtly incorrect plans, tell them of other operations planned that will force them to split troops (such as, say, hinting at an amphibious invasion of the Balkans and paratrooper landings in the Netherlands).

Looking at where I was born, I doubt the SS would have interrogated me, I'd be such a lucky Nazi to be interrogated by the much nicer Brits(this would actually be the good point about fighting for the dark side).~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Break immediately, co-operate from the start. I don't care for my country enough to actually get tortured, die, sure, but tortured, no way, man.

Then try to feed them as much misinformation as possible, while keeping to the truth. So, for D-Day, give them the correct date, but put it a hundred kilometers to the left of the actual location. Give them them sligtly incorrect plans, tell them of other operations planned that will force them to split troops (such as, say, hinting at an amphibious invasion of the Balkans and paratrooper landings in the Netherlands).

---

just tell them that you are part of a special us army team that have a specific motive:

"While our armies are advancing so fast and everyone's knocking themselves out
to be heroes we are holding ourselves in reserve in case the Krauts mount a counteroffensive which threatens Paris or maybe even New York." :2thumbsup:

if anyone can say the source for that quote...you get....a cookie!:beam:

Quote:

---

"While our armies are advancing so fast and everyone's knocking themselves out
to be heroes we are holding ourselves in reserve in case the Krauts mount a counteroffensive which threatens Paris or maybe even New York."

if anyone can say the source for that quote...you get....a cookie!

---

Don't know, but it sounds like a Bushism to me.... :laugh4:

Anything you might say in the peace and safety of the backroom about what you will or won't do under torture is pure fantasy and posturing. You'll never know unless it happens, so just pray it never does.

The british were pretty nasty, they had trained a group of soldier to do a secret mission, and made sure the germans caught them. After a few days of torture these brave men gave the flawed info they assumed to be correct.

That's pretty cold.

Thats one of the coldest things I have ever heard

Depending on what information I had I think I could hold out forever. If the information was not of some critical importance I would sing like a bird or make up a believable fake.

The tricky part is knowing who your captors are, if it’s the US, I’m aware they won’t kill me so it would be easier to hold out. If it were an extremist group I would consider myself dead already so why bother giving in, the pain from torture will be the last thing I ever feel, might as well feel it as long as I can (tasting vinegar is better than tasting nothing). A swift death is BS, I don’t mind the idea of a long and painful death because I know as soon as my life is gone I will be in haven, guilt free because I didn’t risk the lives of others by exposing critical information. I don’t fear death or pain, but I would have a difficult time if a loved one was at risk thou, but again if I know my captors I would know if the threat is hollow or valid, the US is not going to behead my child but I don’t know about some extremist. (Not a bad idea for the US captors to impersonate someone known to be more lethal)

That said I would probably break in an hour. :shrug: who knows until you’ve been there. Perhaps the best defense against torture is being ignorant. ~D

I can all but guarantee nobody here would hold up for more than an hour or two with a dentist with a drill but no novocaine. Think Marathon Man. Yes, at some point the dentist is going to run out of healthy roots to drill into, but that's the fun part, then he can start pouring irritants down into all those nice holes....

They wave a dental drill at me and I'd give up my own mother. No kidding, how do you deal with pain of that intensity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The british were pretty nasty, they had trained a group of soldier to do a secret mission, and made sure the germans caught them. After a few days of torture these brave men gave the flawed info they assumed to be correct.

That's pretty cold.

---

Cold, yes, but not new. It's straight out of Sun Tzu on the use of spies. This is the thing intelligence services fear most -- since all the most advanced interrogation techniques can reveal is the disinformation the enemy wants you to have anyway, and it will be delivered in absolutely believeable way.


A number of you seem to have the wrong impression of torture as an interrogation tool. Setting aside the moral question (and yes that's a huge issue I agree):

1. Torture or "harsh methods" would be/are applied clinically in very controlled scenarios/settings. Lasting harm to a subject limits their long-term usefulness, and excessive means/prolongation of torture will get anyone to say anything, which is counter productive. Movie torturers love to inflict pain for its own sake, but that's a lousy tool for interrogation, and professional interrogators are well aware of this. Remember, intelligence units collect information -- forcing a confession is for bad cops, bad scripts, and the Spanish Inquisition.

2. Torture or "harsh methods" would not be/are not used as the sole means of interrogation. Drugs, simple questioning, casual conversation looking for slips, internet research, and national technical means would all be employed to "cross reference" and fill out the information base. Relying on torture as your primary means would be foolish. It would be, at best, one small component.

3. Given time, sleep deprivation, drugs, torture etc., guided by intelligent questioning and cross referencing information to confirm its reliability, can solicit information from virtually anyone.

Assuming that torture will never work because "people will say anything" is silly. Of course it works, or people wouldn't have been using these techniques for millenia. The assumption that "X was tortured, and tortured people will say anything, so all the information is invalid" is silly. We are not talking about forcing some kind of bogus confession. We are talking about a tool to solicit names, information, etc. all of which will be cross referenced.

So, feel free to attack the concept as morally repugnant and vile, but attacking it's utility is wrong.

I hesitate to say what I would do under incredible pain. I don't know, I've never been tortured. I've had a broken bone, nearly a 3rd degree burn, and really that's about it. I would try to hold out, but frankly, the basic human instincts in the unconcious of our brains are related to human survival in response to incredible pain and fear. My guess is that it would take decades of practiced meditation to hold out.:balloon2:

People have thought all sorts of things for millenia and been terribly wrong.

I don't know. I've never been tortured. Should I have been?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Assuming that torture will never work because "people will say anything" is silly. Of course it works, or people wouldn't have been using these techniques for millenia. The assumption that "X was tortured, and tortured people will say anything, so all the information is invalid" is silly. We are not talking about forcing some kind of bogus confession. We are talking about a tool to solicit names, information, etc. all of which will be cross referenced.

So, feel free to attack the concept as morally repugnant and vile, but attacking it's utility is wrong.

---

no one here said that all information that is obtained from torture is false...but a good ammount will be.

and if you are in a situation were you can´t cross-reference the information (like if the person you are torturing is the only one that knows that information you can´t tell good information from bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The british were pretty nasty, they had trained a group of soldier to do a secret mission, and made sure the germans caught them. After a few days of torture these brave men gave the flawed info they assumed to be correct.

That's pretty cold.

---

And not surprising. The English have a looooong history of masochism. They've taken stoicism and the infamous 'stiff upper lip' to the extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The british were pretty nasty, they had trained a group of soldier to do a secret mission, and made sure the germans caught them. After a few days of torture these brave men gave the flawed info they assumed to be correct.

That's pretty cold.

---

Don't EVER underestimate British intelligence. I've done some reading on MI 5 and 6 and wouldn't ever want to screw (as in thumb screws :2thumbsup: ) with them during WW II.

Something interesting I've noted too. Why is it that when "Bush advocates torture" all the reactionaries scream that it doesn't work, and now people are falling all over themselves to say that it does?

Torture works and can get accurate information, it can also be used to mold how people will react to situations. Look at domestic violence for some of the 'pros and cons' from the point of view of wife beater. The scumbag gets want he wants 'Which of your friends did you see' 'Where is my dinner' and uses pain to get results... the con of it from his point of view is having an automation for a wife and the potential for a backlash where the beaten wife kills the aggressor.

The information from torture will have a limited scope when dealing with organised terrorists. They operate in cells and have limited knowledge of other members within the cell and minimal knowledge of other cells. Also the timeline of that knowledge will be dated very fast.

Information overload. The tortured sings like a canary but you aren't sure what is correct and what is rubbish. The torturing party then has to sift through all the information and get it verified. Easier if you have independent sources, harder if there has been a disinformation campaign to seed incorrect information over a wide range of outlets.

If intelligence services cannot capture the head of a terrorist organisation after 5 years of intense hunting I presume it would be far more difficult to find and stop several cells that are operating independently and going for separate targets whose members are the drug cartel equivalents to mules. They are expendable and easily replaced and have a very low profile... it is after all very hard to be a repeat offender if you are a successful suicide bomber.

OOOOOPs ... 1941 - er, just testing y'all. J/K, was an invertent slip. It happens.

This was not intended to challange any ones concensus on the ability or effectiveness of torture as a tool to attain "the truth" from someone with pertinent information. Because, those that believe it is useful will maintain it as a devisive tool, regardless of the reality. Or, based on their own imagination of how torture would affect them.

Anyone can, given time, be broken by torture - I mean everyone confessed to the charges leveled at them by Stalin - eventually (though many attempted to recant later). So, torture will break most people down. However, when using it against true believers - with a limited window of having to with hold lethal information? I doubt it. Though many of the chemical cocktails employed are useful - when employed with tactics that are less threatening than physical harm.

Captured Allied officers during the Korean-Conflict thought days were weeks during their interrorgations. Rather than full sleep deprivation, they were allowed to sleep for a couple hours - fed a meal (scant - always keep them hungry, but not starving), interrorgated for hours - then sent to their cells to sleep. Hours turn into days if properly applied. Then real torture is applied with the carrot and stick - many of the officers gave up info because they believed it was of no more import. Where as others - the true patriots stayed the course.

True believers are tough to break. Or, as one person put it - 5 years later and no one has given up the planner of 9/11. Makes one wonder what information McCain gave up - since torture works so well.

I think torture works in ticking time-bomb scenarios. When you know somebody has information you want, but won't give it to you. The reason people say "torture doesn't work" is it is very, very poor for fishing expeditions. After the third unanathesized root canal, when you ask the victim "what have you done that you'd like to tell us about", the guy will start telling you that he killed Kennedy maybe even Warren Harding, Lincoln and kidnapped the Lindburgh baby to boot.

“Torture will get you to talk...period...”.1st : Nope, Jean Moulin died of torture without telling the GESTAPO what he knew.
2nd : You can’t be sure what the tortured is telling you is the truth. So if you know you will be tortured, you just have to prepare a story going in the direction of yours interrogators’ prejudices. The French Resistance developed few story about to be a pimp or prostitutes, black marketers, which will explain the travels, false identity and money in cash, for example, things that the Germans were just ready to accept for French. The time the Gestapo verified the stories, the net was aware of the arrest and contacts disappeared.

“The British were pretty nasty, they had trained a group of soldier to do a secret mission, and made sure the Germans caught them”: I don’t know this story but I eared about the British asking a radio contact from the French resistance on the frequencies of the Germans near the Pas de Calais just before D-Day to reinforce the feeing that the landing would be there… True or not, I don’t know, but it was in one of the series we had in France.

Quote:

---

Something interesting I've noted too. Why is it that when "Bush advocates torture" all the reactionaries scream that it doesn't work, and now people are falling all over themselves to say that it does?

---

Nope what you would have noted was people saying that firstly torture is banned and for someone who claims to be the champion of freedom and democracy to push for its use is making a mockery of what he claims he is fighting for , secondly that torture doesn't neccasarily provide accurate or reliable information .

Quote:

---

Don't EVER underestimate British intelligence.

---

The most sensible thing I've heard. Ever.