India to terrorists: Resistance is futile

[Louis VI the Fat]

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)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[KukriKhan]

Brutalizing brutalizes the brutalizer.

And yields info of grey-value, at best.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Tribesman]

Ah I see what you are saying Husar , you think that as he broke the responsibilities he lost the rights that go with those responsibilities , thats fair enough I am in total agreement , but that isn't what Rory is saying .........

He has no rights.

....which is bollox , even the worst scumbag in the world still has some rights because distasteful as it may seem they are still human , which is why Rory with his approach of.....

As far as I am concerned he should not be classed as a human being

....is so fundamentally flawed and as you noted .....

I heard the same applies to jews

...which is a bit sharp but it certainly cuts to the point .
So if you take that and tie it with his rather strange....

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

.....then look at an example like Baruch Goldstein where a freak went round killing indiscriminately claiming he was doing it in the name of his religion it comes up with the strange judicial verdict that even though he had been shooting indiscriminately his death was still legally murder , because even though his actions would lose him many of his rights he still had some rights .

[Husar]

Ah I see what you are saying Husar , you think that as he broke the responsibilities he lost the rights that go with those responsibilities , thats fair enough I am in total agreement , but that isn't what Rory is saying

My point was that this is what Rory probably wanted to say but what he did say was that as he broke the rights he lost the responsibilities which sounds kinda funny.
I think if you "break" the responsibilities you lose some rights, like that of freedom etc. but certain rights you should always keep as they make the difference between the civilized nice guys and the cruel barbarians. Punishment with restraint and "heart" shows more willpower than mindless rage. I know it's hard but I believe the results are better in the end.

[Vladimir]

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 .

Oh dear. I know how much you hate research.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

J. Michael Waller
Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication
Professional Experience

Dr. Waller holds the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Chair in International Communication, and directs the Institute's graduate programs on public diplomacy and political warfare.

He has been a scholar-practitioner in public diplomacy, political warfare, psychological operations and information operations in support of US foreign and military policy. He was a member of the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate, served on the White House Task Force on Central America, and has served as a consultant to the US Information Agency, the US Agency for International Development, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2006 he received a citation from the Director of the FBI for "exceptional service in the public interest."

He is a frequent lecturer and instructor in psychological and information operations for the US military and the intelligence community; a member of the faculty of the Leader Development and Education for Sustained Peace (LDESP) program at the Naval Postgraduate School; and is an Honorary Fellow at the Proteus Futures Group at the Center for Strategic Leadership of the US Army War College, sponsored by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence University.

Dr. Waller is editor of Serviam, a magazine he co-founded in 2007 for and about private sector global stability solutions. He has written for Insight, the Los Angeles Times, Reader's Digest, USA Today, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. He is an occasional commentator on the BBC, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

He was a founding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, published in cooperation with the American University and Moscow State University.

His books include the prizewinning Secret Empire: The KGB in Russia Today (Westview, 1994); Dismantling Tyranny: Transitioning Beyond Totalitarian Regimes, ed. with Ilan Berman (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006); Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War (IWP Press, 2007); The Public Diplomacy Reader (IWP Press, 2007); and the forthcoming Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda and Political Warfare (IWP Press, 2008).

He is Vice President for Information Operations of the Center for Security Policy. His blog is PoliticalWarfare.org.
Education
B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, 1985, George Washington University; John M. Olin Fellow, Boston University, 1987-1989; M.A., Boston University, 1989; Ph.D., Boston University, Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy, 1993. Recipient of the University Professors Alumni Award for Best Dissertation, 1993. Recipient of the University Professors Distinguished Alumni Award, 2007.

So far there is a lot of good discussion on a very sensitive issue.

[Tribesman]

Wow what an impressive resume Vlad, it doesn't mean that Waller isn't a paranoid conspiracy nut who invents quotes though does it .
Though to be fair maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe his claim that he doesn't invent quotes its just that his publishers and editors add these little things "" to his work so it makes it look like he is quoting peoples words when he isn't really quoting peoples words .
Research my arse

[rajpoot]

If I might be allowed to add my bit and two;
The news that has been quoted in the first post, is news to me, I read the papers everyday, and I saw no article about interrogation of the terrorist. Though if someone has made the statement, it must be right.
Next, the government is actually having a hard time, the people most just want to kill the terrorist straight off. The people here don't want them to get a trial at all, and in cases like this I must say, I agree. Because, trials seem to last forever here, they put the chap in a prison, next thing we know, his parteners have hijacked a bus or a plane outside, of kidnapped somebody and will demand his release.
I read recently that one of the terrorists captured in one of the previous attacks, the bombings that took place a few months back, had sent a petition to the president, and that is actually being considered.

[Tribesman]

Hey Seamus here is an explanation , its complete bollox but lets see if its at all credible .
Posting rubbish without research gave ....Research
Making another rubbish post without much research gave...Research
If he does it again without reading more of Wallers work plus some of the criticisms of his work and the problems over his "quotes" and his explanation of how his "quotes" are not really true but are not his fault then he may get a......
Research

[Ironside]

If I might be allowed to add my bit and two;
The news that has been quoted in the first post, is news to me, I read the papers everyday, and I saw no article about interrogation of the terrorist. Though if someone has made the statement, it must be right.
Next, the government is actually having a hard time, the people most just want to kill the terrorist straight off. The people here don't want them to get a trial at all, and in cases like this I must say, I agree. Because, trials seem to last forever here, they put the chap in a prison, next thing we know, his parteners have hijacked a bus or a plane outside, of kidnapped somebody and will demand his release.
I read recently that one of the terrorists captured in one of the previous attacks, the bombings that took place a few months back, had sent a petition to the president, and that is actually being considered.

Wouldn't those hijackers just kill people in revenge for thier executed partner instead? Or in other words, they pretty much lost it and are only trying to find excuses for thier already intended behavior.

I exclude people who have a gigantic responsability (Such as is leading a country with millions of living souls) and willingly (And pre-emptively, meaning without prior "provocation") deny such vital human rights (such as the right to live) to entire people's.

Few people would fall under such category, but yes, those people lost their rights in my eyes.

So it's ok, if that other people are threatening the very foundation that your nation is built on?