Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program released

[Úlfheðinn]

One thing I've wondered about is whether there exists any solid evidence that torture is of any use for intelligence gathering purposes.

Comparatively, looking at the inaccuracy of criminal confessions that have been coerced through threats or violence and historical examples such as trying people for witchcraft, it hardly seems like the most intelligent way for any intelligence agency to be attempting to gather information.

 

[Jhessail]

The other side of the argument as presented by former members of the CIA can be found HERE. The URL speaks for itself

Considering that the Senate Committee points out how multiple times senior CIA staffers lied, misled or fudged the facts about the detention and interrogation programs and they have evidence of that, I'm not keen on believing "the other side" for a minute.

One thing I've wondered about is whether there exists any solid evidence that torture is of any use for intelligence gathering purposes.

Comparatively, looking at the inaccuracy of criminal confessions that have been coerced through threats or violence and historical examples such as trying people for witchcraft, it hardly seems like the most intelligent way for any intelligence agency to be attempting to gather information.

No, torture doesn't work.

Yes, it will break people. They will eventually tell you any- and everything they think you want to know. The problem is that unless you have collaborative sources to double-check with, you cannot know what's true and what's false.

Even the usual scenario that torture-defenders use - "there is a bomb in the city and it'll go off in 15 minutes" is bogus. Because what prevents the bomber to just lie when under torture? Withstand five minutes of torture so it looks authentic, then "give in" and tell a completely wrong location. Bomb will go off, you're a martyr for the cause. That's also where Hollywood constantly gets it wrong - because in every movie and TV-show the bad guy tells the truth after tortured or being threatened with torture. Yet it would be the simplest thing to lie.

CIA itself admitted that torture didn't work before 2001 and did not use "enhanced interrogation", for the exact reasons lined above. Further proof for this is the haphazard way their detention program was initially run - they didn't have experienced professionals to run the interrogations because it wasn't how CIA used to operate.

It is understandable that in the panic that ensued after 9/11 and how Bush Administration undoubtedly pressurized CIA and other agencies to get results as quickly as possible, some CIA staffers forgot what they already knew and thought that maybe all those people before were mistaken and torture does work.

 

[kurczak]

One thing I've wondered about is whether there exists any solid evidence that torture is of any use for intelligence gathering purposes.

Comparatively, looking at the inaccuracy of criminal confessions that have been coerced through threats or violence and historical examples such as trying people for witchcraft, it hardly seems like the most intelligent way for any intelligence agency to be attempting to gather information.

There's a difference between sentencing someone based on a coerced confession on one hand and using information extracted through coercive means as a lead that can be further investigated. Even then it should obviously be used as a last resort. So you interrogate a person through conventional means. He doesn't tell you anything. Now what? What is the alternative to Jhessail's scenario when the bad guy gives out false information? Nothing. The building will still blow up. Nothing was gained by taking the non-torture approach.

I'm not saying that torture is the best thing since bread came sliced. There's a risk the interrogator will become torture-happy and will start using it excessively as a first, not last resort. And admittedly, it looks like something like that might have kind of happened with the black sites. Also, the more likely scenario is that the tortured person will tell you anything  rather nothing. "Yet it would be the simplest thing to lie." It's really not that simple. I was water-boarded once at a...doesn't matter, hehe. It was consensual. I know I'm a lowly civilian with zero training in interrogation survival, but still, five seconds in and I was ready to confess I killed my mother, sleep with my father and eat my **** for breakfast if that's what it would have taken to stop it. That happens when the interrogators have, consciously or subconsciously, preconceived ideas of what they want to hear and will torture until they hear it. That's why it is a bad idea to use torture based confessions as evidence in trials and why it is a bad idea to act on them without further corroboration. But it's doesn't mean it cannot be used to get leads. A simple database check would show my mother is still alive. The other two claims would take maybe a little more time to refute

The other side of the argument as presented by former members of the CIA can be found HERE. The URL speaks for itself

Considering that the Senate Committee points out how multiple times senior CIA staffers lied, misled or fudged the facts about the detention and interrogation programs and they have evidence of that, I'm not keen on believing "the other side" for a minute.

I have no response to that

 

[AWdeV]

So instead of lying on purpose you are so far gone that you just spew any bull**** that comes to mind just to get them to stop.

I don't think that's very productive.

 

[kurczak]

Essentially, for most people, yes. The point isn't really as much to get the (true) information during the individual waterboarding session. The ultimate mechanism behind it is the threat that you will be subjected to more sessions if you keep giving out false leads. Confessions as stated above are pretty much wothless. It is a thin line to walk and waterboarding is a super extreme measure. Probably the most extreme if you want to keep it at least a little civilized. There are less execution-esque methods of torture. Playing records of newborns' cries for extended periods can break more people than you would think from what I have been told. (Not joking)

 

[Untitled.]

Yeah, well, kids are ****ing scary.

 

[Sir Saladin]

Even the usual scenario that torture-defenders use - "there is a bomb in the city and it'll go off in 15 minutes" is bogus. Because what prevents the bomber to just lie when under torture? Withstand five minutes of torture so it looks authentic, then "give in" and tell a completely wrong location. Bomb will go off, you're a martyr for the cause. That's also where Hollywood constantly gets it wrong - because in every movie and TV-show the bad guy tells the truth after tortured or being threatened with torture. Yet it would be the simplest thing to lie.

I don't think torture should be allowed at all but it could work in the very rare Hollywood scenarios. If you know the "detainee" knows the location of a kidnapping victim and you beat him until he tells you where the victim is you can sit on him until someone goes off to see if he was lying or not. Of course most kidnapping victims are murdered before anyone can get to them but there is that slim chance that the kidnappers haven't gotten around to the killing yet. If he was lying you beat on him some more. With the mad bomber scenario it would of course depend on how willing the "involuntary guest" is to get blown up and if he is being held within the blast radius and he would probably lie anyway.

It should not be allowed at all and in most cases it is useless except for the enjoyment some sicko may get out of it but in a movie it might work.

 

[Jhessail]

Yeah, one of the most damning piece in that report is that CIA slid into using torture first, not as a last resort. Plus, it's pointless to torture someone if you do not have a method of checking the information they then give  up - which they didn't always have.

 

[Austupaio]

Well, I believe we feel somewhat similar on the ethical side of the issue, kurczak, certainly if it can be justified to kill someone, it must logically be justifiable to harm someone... however, despite it being a topic I've been interested in for a while, particularly in regards to the CIA and NSA, I've seen little to ever sway me that torture is even capable of being an effective option in a significant majority of circumstances/situations.

So my stance is that the CIA should just get it's overhaul, people charged/thrown out, throw the public a bone and let the CIA rebuild itself and get back to it's job.

Also I refuse to call it 'enhanced interrogation'; torture is torture. Either you approve of it ethically or you don't.

 

[Sir Saladin]

Sometimes killing can be justified but torture can't. That's why executions should be done by hanging or firing squad instead of using electric chairs, injections, crucifixions or burnings at the stake.

 

[Kobrag]

We perfected hanging, calculated the length by weight ratios to trigger a perfectly snapped neck.
If we were ever to instigate lethal 'justice' again, I would prefer this over that horrible needle related stuff you yanks have.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

death by cannoning sqaud

 

[Sir Saladin]

death by cannoning sqaud

The condemned man will be fired from a cannon but no one will know which cannon he is being fired from and all of the cannons will all be aimed at a pool filled with sharks. Laser beams are optional.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

It's also a pool of acid.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

It's also boiling.

 

[kurczak]

Sometimes killing can be justified but torture can't. That's why executions should be done by hanging or firing squad instead of using electric chairs, injections, crucifixions or burnings at the stake.

Torture as a punishment just to get back emotionally at someone for having been a **** is not the same thing as torture as an interrogation method to obtain new/additional information.

 

[Kobrag]

Sometimes killing can be justified but torture can't. That's why executions should be done by hanging or firing squad instead of using electric chairs, injections, crucifixions or burnings at the stake.

Torture as a punishment just to get back emotionally at someone for having been a **** is not the same thing as torture as an interrogation method to obtain new/additional information.

Yes it is...
As torture for the last hundred years, at least, has been declared ineffective as an interrogation method. :/
The only reason to declare as an interrogation method is to justify the inflictior's insanity*.
And it's just ****ing despicable, amoral, dastardly, atrocious etc.
I am surprised at your support in a major breach of international agreements.
Seriously, you are repulsive.

*Definition in this case being the act of repeating something that has been proven time and time again to be false in it's effectiveness.


Edit: spit and polish

 

[Untitled.]

Whoa. Don't you think you're acting a bit over-the-top there, Kobs? I mean, it's just a question of morals anyway, and opinions that might seem alien to the world you've been exposed to might actually not seem that far-fetched to others with a differing point of view.
Imo, you sound a bit condescending right now.

 

[Duh]

Whoa. Don't you think you're acting a bit over-the-top there, Kobs? I mean, it's just a question of morals anyway, and opinions that might seem alien to the world you've been exposed to might actually not seem that far-fetched to others with a differing point of view.
Imo, you sound a bit condescending right now.

Sounds like torture is the new gay.

 

[Kobrag]

Whoa. Don't you think you're acting a bit over-the-top there, Kobs? I mean, it's just a question of morals anyway, and opinions that might seem alien to the world you've been exposed to might actually not seem that far-fetched to others with a differing point of view.
Imo, you sound a bit condescending right now.

As well I should be.
As well as the entire populations of the world that signed up to the conventions damning torture should be.