The Long Shadow of Torture
In the post-September 11th era, torture became an aspect of U.S. identity, a defining part of our national repertoire of intelligence gathering and military detention. This is something we knew on some level long before April, when the Obama administration released Bush administration memos that functionally sanctioned it.
Those memos semantically parse just how far an interrogator could go, how much lasting psychological or physical pain he or she must inflict, to breach international definitions of "torture." Without stridency, Darius Rejali's knowledge sets such parsing in human and historical context. Most importantly, he helps us understand the damage such calibrations — and the policies they engender on a slippery slope of rationalization — did to the soldiers who received the orders and to the nation that now carries this legacy. What it does, in other words, to us.
We started talking years ago as a production team about how we could approach the subject of torture and contribute to public reflection on it. In Darius Rejali, we finally found a distinctive, helpful, edifying way in. He brings a unique practical and moral authority to this conversation on several levels. He was raised in pre-revolutionary Iran with, as he tells it, an Iranian Shiite father and a Calvinist American mother. He grew up with an awareness that a long line of his aristocratic Iranian forebears, including his great grandfather, had used torture against opponents. Torture was also a known tool of the state apparatus of the king, or Shah, who ruled Iran during Darius Rejali's childhood in the 1960s and 70s.
Darius Rejali says there is no question that authoritarian states have practiced torture most viciously. But, he points out, torture is also not incompatible with modernity, culture, and education, nor is it a stranger to democracy. Major media reports of the story behind "enhanced interrogation," after its details were declassified in April, suggested that U.S. officials had to learn about torture techniques used by the former Soviet Union. But one of most disturbing — and important — revelations Darius Rejali makes in this conversation is that democracies have made their distinctive mark on the history of torture, including the U.S.
Torture is a part of the history of human cruelty, Darius Rejali clarifies. It is distinguished by the fact that it is applied by officials of a state, claiming public trust. Rejali finds echoes of torture not only on the Iranian side of his family lineage but also in that of his maternal ancestors who held slaves in the American South. Interrogation using electricity was innovated in U.S. prisons in the early 20th century. Even "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, — the most notorious and controversial method of interrogation to enter our public vocabulary recently — appeared domestically, inside U.S. prisons, early in the last century. In the 1980s, a Texas sheriff and his deputies were convicted of using waterboarding to extract confessions from prisoners. This is not a new or foreign invention.
It is, rather, a prime example of the "long shadow" of torture that this conversation attempts to trace as a foundation for collective reckoning and healing. Waterboarding first took root in local police forces, mostly in the American South, after U.S. soldiers were exposed to it in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. Its impact becomes manifest in the inner trauma, the family lives, and the future work in security firms and prisons of soldiers who were ordered to do something — as Rejali sees it — that no human being should ever be ordered to do.
Rejali's immersion in 40 years of social scientific research also yields the plain, unsettling message that these men and women who have perpetrated torture were probably not sadists, not just a "few bad apples" who defied the norm. The demonstrated if shocking norm of human behavior is that at least half of us are capable of inflicting harm on another human being under orders, in the right circumstances, with the right kind of authority behind the orders. I'm reminded here of a similar observation made to me recently, and discerned in killing fields the world over, by the forensic anthropologist Mercedes Doretti.
The upside of facing this malleability of human nature, however, is that the right systems of accountability and reckoning can make a profound and immediate difference moving forward. Darius Rejali also proposes some very practical steps for lawmakers and citizens as we reckon with the unfolding consequences of what has been done in our name in recent years. This reckoning is in all of our interest, whatever side of the political divide we are on, and whether photographs are released or some individuals brought to trial.
Whether you call it "enhanced interrogation" or "torture," it profoundly traumatizes the lives and societies of those who experienced it and those who perpetrated it. Coming to terms with these human consequences will be the work not of days but of years and generations. For we know that in our lives, both individual and collective, traumas that we do not face will continue not merely to haunt but to define us.
I Recommend Reading:
Torture and Democracy
by Darius Rejali
Rejali's latest book on torture, violence, and its role in democratic countries is a sweeping, definitive narrative. His comprehensive history of torture and its techniques shines a clarifying, expansive light on modern debates, with both moral and practical implications for us as individuals and as members of a broader culture.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 50
Most think war and capital punishment are also appropriate, given the right circimstances. I do not. Like torture, none of it "works" the way proponents claim.
War does not give rise to peace; it gives rise to more war. Capital punishment does not prevent capital crime. Torture does not yield accurate information.
I am reminded of the words of Jesus, to the effect that whatever is done to the least of his brothers is done to him. Blessed are the peacemakers, indeed.
Thanks, Steve, for bringing up that particular Bible quote (my favourite, Matthew 25:40). One of the aspects of Jesus's teachings most commonly overlooked by many who claim to be his followers.
This world is populated by imperfect human beings. We are flawed and all we can hope is we make this place a bit better then when we arrived and provide our children the tools to improve it a bit more, they will also be flawed. I can assure that today is much better than the good old days.
There is just cause to call war hell. People experience such horrendous events and have to make choices that are in direct conflict of how they lived their lives. Have you considered while you set in your comfortable home what you would do if you had to face what they face? What would you do if your family was facing imminent death or dismemberment? What would you do if you had in your hands a person who had played a major role in the death damage of thousands and had information about plans to do that to thousands more? I am glad that life is so black and white for you, to me and I suspect to those walking the battle fields live is shades of gray.
People can belittle torture, but in reality everyone will succumb and tell all they know.
Capital punishment, it does work. The person executed will not commit murder ever again.
A person being tortured will succumb and tell everything they know. They will also make up anything you want to hear and confess to anything you think they may be guilty of, whether they actually are or not. Torture yields all kinds of information. Unfortunately, it doesn't yield reliable or actionable information.
Capital punishment does not reduce the murder rate. American executes more prisoners than any other country except China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Yet the murder rate is the 24th highest in the world, higher than any other industrialized democracy.
Rory M.,
Do you presume that all the information provide by those that aren't tortured is relaible? Why?
Could it be that the information is simply a starting point of where to look and couldn;t that be of extreme importance?
Capital punishment; is what it says, punishment. Deterennt is somehting people use to rationalize. What percentage of criminals are repeat offenders? The only deterennt is the criminal not available while suffering the punishment.
If you want to address the cause of crime and nature of crime that is another discussion. Our legal system is about crime and punishment.
I am not in agreement with punishment being the only goal of our legal system. I believe the value of punishment is very limited.
I do not presume that all the information provided by those that aren't tortured is reliable. We cannot have access to perfect information on those who are in opposition to us. The nature of humanity is that we are good at deception. This cannot be overcome. It is for this reason that lie detectors are not considered permissible in determining the veracity of testimony in criminal cases: they are not reliable. And for the same reason that people cling to the idea that lie detector help reveal the truth, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that some also hope that torture will elicit a more reliable truth despite evidence to the contrary: we wish for certainty that we cannot have.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Excellent article and the book looks like a very good read. Thank you.
The effect of torture on the perpetrator as well as the victim has been widely overlooked in the public discussion about it. That torture in morally repugnant is also subordinate in public discussions to other rationalizations for it. The failure of torture to produce reliable information undermines most of those rationalizations, in any event. The damage done to the victim and the torturer carries forward in time and can inflict further damage on all of society. As proponents, even reluctant ones or unwilling ones, of torture we are all diminished as a society. Our own soldiers are also placed at greater risk of being subjected to torture when we provide their enemies with a justification for using it agains them when captured.
As noted, half the population is capable of committing such acts if instructed to. I would also go further and say that almost all people are capable of it if they are raised in an atmosphere that condones acts of this nature. By making our own societies embrace torture, for whatever reasons, we move closer to creating the conditions in which we will raise more people capable of conducting torture.
It is a vicious circle.
Of course, the morality issue is the point. Torture is immoral - case closed.
That torture is not only ineffective, but counter-productive is made only for the benefit of those, who are not apparently concerned with the morality of the issue.
You also speak to the "karma" of torture. The heinousness of torture is not limited to what damage one inflicts on another. What it makes of the torturer is far worse. Why proponents don't "get that" is something I may never understand.
Finally, I think more than half of the general population is capable of committing torture, given the right circumstances. I think the only guard against it is a prolonged and disciplined practice of trying to manifest compassion, love of God and neighbor, "ahimsa" - no harm. Unless that is actively pursued, I think one's "house is build on sand".
Rory M.,
Did Sadamn practice torture before or after they were invaded? During WWII were US soldiers and other tortured before the US entered the war? Why was McCain tortured?
Duane B., so your argument is "two wrongs make a right"?
Rory W.,
"Our own soldiers are also placed at greater risk of being subjected to torture when we provide their enemies with a justification for using it agains them when captured."
The point is that enemies don;t use torture as retribution because that would only be true if they caught a sppecific tortures. The great torturors didn;t wait for their enemies to give them justification, so trying to make a case against if base on how it justifies yuor enemies is weak at best.
If you say everyone succumbs then what is your alternative?
The alternative is to accept the reality that we must live with uncertainty, that we cannot eliminate dangers, that the world is a dangerous place. But that danger, and our fear of it, does not justify immoral actions on our part. I cannot walk into your house and kill you because I fear that you may kill me. It may even be true that you might kill me, but my fear of that eventuality does not justify me acting pre-emptively. If I have evidence of your plans to kill me then I must report that evidence to the police and trust in their ability to protect me.
Right now fear has been used so extensively to manipulate the American public that many feel anything, ANYTHING, is justified if it will prevent our fears becoming reality. This is not true.
"...danger, and our fear of it, does not justify immoral actions on our part."
Absolutely true, and well said, even if many are not swayed by arguments based on ethics and morality.
That's why, above, I also provide the link to Ali Soufan's testimony that torture is not only ineffective, it is counter-productive. Its only apparent "value" is in making proponents feel better.
What is moral or ethical actions, isn;t that in the eye of the beholder? You may not believe in capital punishment, I feel it fits the crime. Who is more moral you or me.
You may feel unlimited access to abortions is moral, it preserves the mother's way of living. For me it may be that the unborn baby is a defenseless victim. Who is more moral you or me?
For you or I sitting here in comfort at our computer and pontificating whether the individual tortures are immoral is also in the eye of the beholder.
150 years ago one ethinic group practiced physical torture of the most grusome kind and were called noble.
I am grateful that our legal system allows a person from testifying against themselves. That is a legal barrier to torture in a civilized enviroment.
But to say in the uncivilized environment of war that torture is ineffective is niave. And to deny the impact it can have is arrogant.
To suggest that those that use torture against us simply because there have been cases of torture committed by US people is to willingly ignoring reality.
Geneva Convention: "Article 13; Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
If we use the convention as the defintion of torture then imprsionment with proper feeding and respect for religious and other ehtinic practices would be the only viable way to handle prisoners. Oh that sounds like Gitmo. But I guess that wouldn't work because the simple act of asking questions while in confinement could be considered torture.
Just as with defining what is moral there are the same challenges to defining torture.
AS for fear being use to manipulate the American public, when have politicians not done that and do you truly believe only one party uses fear? The classic is the LBJ landslide vcitory using the daisy ad.
"If we use the convention as the defintion of torture then imprsionment with proper feeding and respect for religious and other ehtinic practices would be the only viable way to handle prisoners. Oh that sounds like Gitmo."
No, it does not. Guantanamo Bay prisoners were tortured, or subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques".
I think the Geneva convention defines it very exactly, there is no room for vascillation nor any challenge to defining it whatsoever. And the Geneva convention was not only agreed to and signed into law by America, by an American President and an American Congress, it was actually written by Americans. And this came out of the largest and most deadly war in history, speaking of uncivilized environments.
There is no excuse for torture. Using fear, which is the basis of the current attempts to justify it (if we don't the terrorists might attack us unawares) does not alleviate the moral obligations.
"What is moral or ethical actions, isn;t that in the eye of the beholder?"
No, unless you would consider such a moral precept as, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," a relative imperative.
I submitted above that there are those, who do not think the morality of torture an important consideration in this debate. That apparently applies to you. So, to you I suggest another argument: not only is torture ineffective; it is counter-productive. Ali Soufan (look it up) testified to that fact before congress a couple of weeks ago. He was there.
I would also suggest that ethics/morality is not simply a relative means of "justification" or "rationalization" for doing whatever one is going to do anyway, as you seem to believe in your examples above. Indeed, your formula would mean that there really is no such thing as ethics/morality to begin with. No. Ethics and morality are disciplines, branches of philosophy, and they suggest principles that should guide decisions - not justify them.
"...principles that should guide decisions - not justify them."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, Steve B.
Thanks to you, too, Rory. The "high road" is a truly lonely path. It's good to have company.
I believe strongly in ethics and morals. I have my own that I live by and their are those that are established by governments and organizations the establish a consistancy for those covered.
For me "In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments " is well defined description of torture.
"against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity" that is unclear to me. What is intimidation? It seems unique to each person. What are insults, is that defined by what a person does or says to others or it is what you think it might be to some one else, is it particular works or actions. In some societies the plam up when gestering for someone to come to you was an insult, in others it is plam down. As for public curiosity, is when a pictures is taken or when the media publishes it?
I wish I had your confidence in the black and white of this an other issue, it would make live so much simpler.
Is confrontational, agressive questioning above a whisper intimidation? Is asking rapid fire question in no apparent order while demanding answers intimidation? Please describe your definition of intimidation.
Oh, Duane, I think we all know when we are trying to intimidate someone. It is not accidental. It is not a misunderstood gesture or culturally misplaced hand signal. It is a deliberate attempt to inspire fear in another. You are being coy.
Rory M.,
"I think we all know ..." You sound like the Judge on pornography, I can't describe it but I know it when I see.
"...when we are trying to intimidate someone. It is not accidental." Does that mean when a person has the intent to intimidate it is torture?
If you can;t define it then it is open to interpretation.
"no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation " that seems well defined and I don;t recall that being an issue.
I am not being coy, I don't think the geneva convention inclusion of intimidation is not well defined and it could easily be extended to everyday activities from social groups (such as fraternities, sports teams) to work places, to a business trying to discourage a complaint, to a customer trying to get more from a business, to a govenremnt enforcement agency.
I take it you have never seen a person at a service desk raise their voice and lean across the counter when making a point, I felt it was intimidation but not torture.
Psycological torture is not as black and white as you assume.
You're right, Duane, that those examples of intimidation in everyday interactions are not torture. But then, those people are not prisoners, they can walk away or contact the police and have charges pressed when the intimidation crosses the line. Big, big difference.
Rory M.,
What if is part of a police investigation? Does the person alwyas feel they can walk away?
If it is your boss or a spouse does the person always feel they can walk away?
You still have offered any description for us to agree on or even edit. If it is so clear why can;t it be written down?
You offered it yourself, and I'll repeat it here so you don't miss it this time:
"Article 13; Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
What part of "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity" do you find difficult to understand?
Geneva Convention "Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Do you think they are conducting their war in accordance with the laws and customs of war?
It is true that the nature of warfare has changed, this is widely acknowledged especially post 9/11. There is much talk about how victory is defined, how the enemy is defined, how to adapt strategic operations in the face of the new realities of war.
And those changes almost force a new definition of "militia", of "volunteer corp", of "armed forces" and of "organized resistance movements".
But it does not force a new definition of torture. No matter the origin of the prisoner of war, no matter his affiliation, torture remains torture. If we prick them, do they not bleed.
Rory M.,
I am a simple guy, I need clarity you, you say that the Geneva Convention defines torture, we wrote it so we should adhere to it. But it seems when we expand the discussion to include other parts of the document you now feel it doesn't apply.
You believe in the Geneva Convention until you don't. You want everyone to act a certain way and yet you won't even try to describe what that way should be. How safe do you think our highways would be if that was how the traffic was managed?
I personally feel physical mutilation whether permanent or temporary is wrong. If we prick them they bleed. However, psychological influence is much more difficult. Direct physical threats to ones family and friends for a psychotically intimidation is wrong. Distracting someone psychologically to break their concentration on their lie seems possible, as an example; if a person has a real concern about insects I don't think an interrogator has to make any special effort to have a pristine room for questioning. The psychology of each individual is unique and is not readily apparent. It may suprise you that some of those interrogated might fain such problems. By the same token to avoid questioning of someone seems inappropriate.
If some one oversteps your bounds of torture, how would they know without you describing them?
I personally feel physical mutilation whether permanent or temporary is wrong. If we prick them they bleed. However, psychological influence is much more difficult. Physical threats to ones family and friends for a psychotically intimidation is wrong. Distracting someone psychologically to break their concentration on their lie seems possible, as an example; if a person has a real concern about insects I don't think an interrogator has to make any special effort to have a pristine room for questioning. The psychology of each individual is unique and is not readily apparent. By the same token to avoid questioning of someone seems inappropriate. If some one oversteps your bounds of torture, how would they know without you describing them?
Duane, I find the definition contained in Article 13 to be sufficient, plain, complete and I have no problem knowing where to draw the line based on that definition.
One cannot write laws so that every single imaginable action is described in detail for the purposes of prohibition. Law must be interpreted. Some aspects of law are re-interpreted with the passage of time and the progression of society. Others remain steadfast and immutable. This is normal. Because the definition of a soldier or a prisoner might require re-drafting as a result of the changing nature of human conflict and society does not, ipso facto, mean that the actions that are prohibited against those prisoners must also be re-drafted.
It seems to me that it is simple. It also seems to me that you are making it complex deliberately, in order to throw the whole thing into question and raise doubt as to whether any violation of Article 13 is committed when a suspected terrorist is waterboarded. I'm not saying that this is your intent, but it seems that it is from where I sit.
"It also seems to me that you (Duane) are making it complex deliberately, in order to throw the whole thing into question and raise doubt as to whether any violation of Article 13 is committed when a suspected terrorist is waterboarded."
Duane missed an opportunity to work for w.'s justice department. He would have fit in. Gonzales would have been proud. Such an approach - what can we legally get away with - is not what I'd consider a "moral" or "ethical" approach. Simply saying morals/ethics are important becomes empty rhetoric in view of such an approach.
Rory M.,
AS I understand things; rules and laws are established to communicate knowedge and practices. Since there is nothing common about us, we view things uniquely. When there is a difference of interpretatoin normally there is discussion and an undertsanding is reached. The understanding is then published so it becomes the accepted rule and others can abide by it.
It seems it is only others views should be up for discussion? Why is that?
In none of this conversation have I changed your view on torture, I only ask to help in describing it, I even offer points to start from, all are ignored.
If you want to change things you need to particpate in the interchange of ideas, and work to help others ti understand what you see.
Steve B.,
YOu remarks about working for w.'s justice department could be consider and insult and by the Geneva Convention torure.
Duane. You're doing the same thing they did.
Steve B.,
So if you don;t like the person you discount what they say? Or if you disagree with what they say you don;t listen to them?
I have been made to think more by listening to the people I disagree with then to those I agree with.
In this discussion I don't figure to change your mind, but by listening to your comments I think throuhg what you say, and try to understand the application of it. In that way I force myself to listen, think, and learn.
In my limited experience, when people opening explain their views, the why of those views, and dicuss them, more times than not all parties gain.
BUt I can appreciate how much easier it is to simply sya the other person is wrong, rahter than take the time and effort to help them understand what you see.
"In none of this conversation have I changed your view on torture, I only ask to help in describing it, I even offer points to start from, all are ignored."
Duane, I have not ignored your repeated requests. I have made the point repeatedly that I believe the the Article 13 description is sufficient. I do not find it too vague or lacking in detail. I have said clearly that laws do not, as a rule, detail every possible permutation of the act they are written to prohibit. That you seem unable to discern from that description contained in Article 13 seems, to me, to be your failure of comprehension and I am not sure what else you would need to clarify things for you. If it comes down to a listing of very possible act of torture then I have neither the time nor the inclination to help you, or anyone else, devise such a comprehensive list. It is for this reason that I say your approach appears to me to be deliberately obstinate. It appears to me that you are insisting upon not understanding what I believe to be a clear definition. That seems disingenuous to me.
If it is not, in fact, a deliberate thing, then I apologize for the inferrence. But that is how it comes across.
Rory M.,
I am disappointed you feel that way. I am an average guy who trys to relate to these type of issues by putting them in practical terms.
"So if you don;t like the person you discount what they say?"
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking, or discounting. It has to do with exactly what I said. You're doing the same thing they did - exactly.
When you talk about torture it seems so simply. It is or it isn't. Iwant it to be that way but I don;t know what all yo inlcude in.
Physical mutilation is clear, and as far as I can tell that has been an issue in this discussion. Though it seems those who we are figthing against seem to practice it regualrly.
I am trying to understand what the rest of torture is. Is there a description of intimidatation or insults that you cosider torture. Rory can/won;t help will you?
I can imagine the difficulty of the people in the field waging this war and wanting to get the most information possible and not having guidance on where the limit is.
In the heat of the moment, without giudance what do they rely on? Could they be influenced by the description of the atrocities the people they are quesitoning, could they be so focused on the infomration and the potential atrocities that are being describe to them, could they be so warned down by the stresses of the war that the civility of home has been pushed aside, without some well defined gudance to reference what is their reference.
Most jobs here in the US that are expected to provide consistant results have well documented protocols. We sit hear and talk about this and yet no one offers up any description other then the Geneva Convention.
You maybe frustrated by my questioins, consider what those guys must feel.
"When you talk about torture it seems so simply. It is or it isn't. Iwant it to be that way but I don;t know what all yo inlcude in....I am trying to understand what the rest of torture is."
Well, you could try waterboarding, as Christopher Hitchens and Erich "Mancow" Muller did to discover for themselves whether waterboarding is torture or not. Both said it is - definitively.
Or you can study the history of waterboarding, and discover that no one ever thought it was anything but torture until the Bush administration thought it could take the approach you take: if it's not specifically stated anywhere that waterboarding is torture, there must be some wiggle room. Of course, you have to ignore precedent in taking such an approach.
So for folks like you, who simply cannot be persuaded by the ethical/moral argument (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), I include the "effectiveness" argument. Waterboarding is not effective in achieving the results you are after. In fact, waterboarding was counter-productive. In testimony before congress, FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, who was at the initial interviews with Abu Zubaydah, stated that the terrorist had provided "actionable intelligence" in response to traditional techniques. He testified that Zubayday "shut down", and became useless to intelligence gathering operations when waterboarding was introduced.
It seems that you believe that you can keep any debate "open" by a style of incessant questioning. You do the same with the climate change issue. But at some point, even you must realize that "the fat lady has indeed sung" on these issues, and that the only thing you call into question by your rhetorical strategy of hanging a question mark on any/everything, is your own credibility.
Steve B.,
Great, in that one word you have create a point to discussion (disappointingly Rory was unable to do) "waterboarding" is a torture, no disagreement. We have a starting point, and need to extend it because I believe that there are other such actions that should be exclude from interaogation.
Rather then wait tilll they are used and the media (surely not the politicians or at least not Pelosi tells us about them) we need to given some guidance.
Do we create a list or give some description? To develop that description can we learn from "waterboarding"? What is it about "waterboarding" that makes it a torture? Particulary those things that we would no want don;t in other interrogation techniques?
This is ridiculous. It is like asking to define walking. If we defined walking as the rapid placement of one foot in front of the other you would want to know if there was a rhythm involved, a cadence, does it matter which foot you start with. If we answered that you would want to know if running is a form of walking.
At some point you have to open a dictionary if you are that unable to interpret commonly used words and their application.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Figure it out.
"We have a starting point, and need to extend it because I believe that there are other such actions that should be exclude from interaogation."
You are asking the wrong question - as did the Bush administration. I won't say you have the same motivation as the Bush administration, but you are asking the same wrong question.
The issues in interrogation are: 1. we should treat prisoners as we would want our troops to be treated (morality), and 2. we should focus on what we want to accomplish by interrogation. If the goal is to obtain information, then the "techniques", based in violence and humiliation are not going to yield that result. I encourage you to read the testimony of Ali Soufan, linked above.
Rory M.,
Sure we define what is walking vs. running and we even have laws that say where to walk, where not to run, whether to where shoes. For something as common place as walking we have specific rules. When it comes to something as significant and critical as how information is gathered, why are you so disinclined to try to established specific rules?
Steve B.,
I was unable to get into the NY Times to read the article, I Binged him and some of what I read described how bad torture is.
"If the goal is to obtain information, then the "techniques", based in violence and humiliation are not going to yield that result." Are you trying to tell me that people that are subjected to torture will not tell all they know? Why would you believe that? I can't imagine my being subjected to torture and not telling everything I know. If torture is as bad as everyone says I would surely try to do what it took to get it to stop. If I was lying, I would say so and tell them what the lies were.
If people were pulling my fingernails out one at a time, if the were chopping my fingers off one at a time, if the were skinning me, if the were burning me with cigarettes, they were drilling into my teeth (all of these I have seen in the movies or on TV) I would do whatever I thought it would take to get it to stop. I can imagine even surviving what Senator McCain went through. You want me to believe that they won't get the information. Some may last longer than others, but I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't talk.
We seem to be in agreement about torture, I am simply trying to describe what the boundary of torture is so people will know what not to step over in stressful situations.
Ali Soufan is giving the testimony, Duane. He described these techniques as "...ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."
Since you were unable to access the NY Times article, perhaps you would be interested in reading his congressional testimony.
I think that the testimony of a professional interrogator - a successful interrogator - is more valuable to this discussion than either your or my imaginings.
Finally, I would hope you would perform more admirably under torture. I would hope I would.
Steve B.,
I don't disagree on the limitations or are the harm of torture. I simply believe that it needs to have a better description so people better understand the boundaries. I also am concerned that if insult, intimiidation, and public curiousity are the soel criteria then anyone acting in a manner that the person being questioned feels they are a victim of one if not all would successfully claim torture and this would stop all questioning.
I recall with Enron the police walked the officials into the court house on what the media was calling the "walk of shame". Was that toruture, it surley had public curiousity.
Your hope for me is misguided I have suffered a few times in the dentis's chair and there is no doubt in my mind that I would succumb.
If the point of interrogation is to obtain "actionable intelligence", then the questions you present are irrelevant. Again, I refer you to Ali Soufan, who describes what works to that end. Not coincidentally, the interrogation techniques he used do not violate any moral or ethical codes either.
Steve B.,
THe idea is to bring defintion to torture so it will be elimnated. We have one description; no physical mutilation. Where the struggle seems to be is what is intimidation, insult, and public curiousity.
We agree "waterbourding" boarding is excluded. What else is excluded? Is loud voice, is personal habits such as smoking or denying the interviewee smoking? Is torture as seen throhg the eyes of the interviewee or the interviewer, or should it be by some uninvolve person or rule?
Duane.
I don't know if the "Army Field Manual" is accessible online, but it seems to be the standard for how to deal with prisoners. I know Mr. Soufan describes it as a practical and effective science in this arena.
Now, I know from other discussions that you are adverse to trusting professionals, but I trust professionals in the FBI and CIA to know their business. Those professionals were not the ones torturing prisoners. Those were contractors, according to Soufan.
So here is my point, and I'll have to leave it at that. Limit interactions with prisoners to those techniques, strategies, protocols defined and outlined in the "Army Field Manual". Then you won't have to be anxious about whether you are "crossing a line" with regards to torture.
Steve B.,
I toook your advice and Binged the Field manual. My problem is either my computer is too old (8 years and can download fast enough) or my PDF reader has problems or a combination becuae it will not let me open and read the file (Army Field Manual). I did find some references on Wikapedia to it and mention of not toturing, not no refrence to what torture is.
in the program, you and your guest both made the point that studies of people who said no, who refused to continue in experiments simulating torture, had not been studied much at all. I hope you'll find a way to continue that thought in future programs.