Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I keep hearing this line of thought over and over. The first question that comes to my mind is: how do we know?
|
Mainly it's massive historical precedent, coming not just from modern nations but evidence dating back to earlier civilizations. Still, there are also a great deal of contemporary experts, people well versed in or involved with torture, that speak as if as one to say that torture doesn't work. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue that torture doesn't work. They're everywhere. The only people that really seem to support torture are either Bush Administration officials or people parroting those officials. Or third world despots. Or Israel.
Who's side do you want to be on, the chickenhawks or the experts?
Let's say you work at the CIA. You're specialty is questioning prisoners and extracting information. The problem is that the current administration wants you to find a link between al Qaeda and Iraq that isn't there. You tell them clearly that you've questioned plenty of detainees about this and there's no case to be made, but they say push harder. You question more and more people, using techniques that you know, based on your decades of experience, to be effective. Still nothing. No link whatsoever. They're pressuring your boss's boss's boss to get this intel, and the pressure on you is intense to say the least. Finally, someone in that chain of command (probably at or near the top based on what we now know) orders you to torture for the information. You very strongly advise against this, because in your decades of experience not once has torture been even close to reliable, but an order is an order. You find out later that the same requests are made of the military and FBI, only to have them back out completely and refuse to torture. You do it anyway, and eventually you get intelligence about a very vague link. A lot of the confession goes against established intelligence on both Iraq and al Qeada, but your superiors decide that it's good enough.
Why are we ignoring our experts? Because it's convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Assuming the 'experts' who have come to this conclusion have not regularly engaged in actually 'torturing' people to get information, what is there conclusion based on[?] Can they point actual data or is the conclusion pure and simple speculation? Can they cite any scientific studies, or are they just basing the view on a theoretical hypothesis?
|
As far as studies are concerned, there were massive studies done when creating the Army Field Manual, which states:
Quote:
|
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
|
Still, all of the best information available on the subject comes straight from the mouths of the experts, who can't exactly write a book or participate in a peer-reviewed study about what they've done. They all agree, torture doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Again, I think there is a clear difference between using enhanced questioning techniques when seeking specific information based on evidence that the target knows the information and using 'torture' either for the simple sake of harming individuals or just seeking random bits of unknown information. I agree that if a 'foot soldier' is captured "positive reinforcement" may be the best way to get any information he has. However, if a high value target is captured, I would support the use of enhance interrogation techniques until his will is broken and he has disclosed the information needed. The available time would determine how quickly we should escalate the 'questioning'.
|
That'd be great if you want to get unreliable information, but what kind of idiot wants unreliable information in a life and death situation? Why would that individual ignore generations of precedent and the best expertise available in the world? Why would that individual not use proven techniques? The answer is simple: you torture when you want to illicit a false confession.
Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda before the US invaded, and torture doesn't work. Process it, deal with it, and let's move on. We've got a lot of work to do.