PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Article On Torture



actsnoblemartin
10-20-2007, 10:13 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071019/sc_livescience/torturehasalonghistoryofnotworking

From the dingy dungeons of the Dark Ages to today's shadowy holding facilities, the use of torture as an interrogation tactic has evolved little and possibly yielded even less, in terms of intelligence.

Inflicting pain to get information is a practice with deep roots as well as modern relevance, in light of the recent statements by President George W. Bush claiming the U.S. government does not use torture on political prisoners, despite some evidence to the contrary.


But aside from the moral and legal implications, does torture ever produce reliable intelligence?


"That's the impossible question," said Darius Rejali, a political scientist at Reed College in Oregon.


As a rule, torture is not an effective method of extracting information from prisoners, most experts agree.


"If anything useful came out these interrogations in Iraq, we would have heard about it," said Alfred McCoy, a University of Wisconsin-Madison historian and author of "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror" (Holt Paperbacks, 2006).


A history of violence


The question of torture has become more controversial of late due to a report in The New York Times on memos issued by the U.S. Justice Department in 2005, effectively authorizing intelligence agencies to use interrogation methods defined as torture under international law.


Psychological techniques such as the water-boarding and sleep deprivation that American operatives are suspected of using recently have a history going back to behavior experiments from the 1950s, McCoy said.


"They were looking for a key to unlock the mind," McCoy said of the CIA-funded research, "and the real breakthrough was that sensory deprivation could produce a mental disorientation akin to psychosis."


A switch from more physical methods of torture to the psychological approaches emerged in the following decades in places such as Vietnam, Central America and Iran, McCoy said, without any definitive proof of their effectiveness. When the "War on Terror" was initiated after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the CIA had another training ground for this kind of interrogation at its Guantanamo Bay detention center.


"Guantanamo Bay turned into a de-facto behavioral science laboratory," McCoy told LiveScience, where sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain—allowing a detainee who had stood for hours to sit if he would only "cooperate"—regularly took place.


Though captives are less resentful when tortured psychologically, it doesn't make their statements any more trustworthy, Rejali said.


"Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true," Rejali wrote in a 2004 article on Salon.com.


Torture 'light' still unreliable


There's no such thing as "a little bit of torture," McCoy said of the "light" tactics that are preferred today. Detainees are just as likely to tell their interrogators whatever they want to hear under psychological distress as they are under physical distress, he said, a statement backed up by Sen. John McCain, who himself was tortured as an officer during the Vietnam War.


Democracies, rather than dictatorships or oppressive regimes, are more likely to engage in this seemingly stealthy kind of torture because it is easier to hide from journalists and citizens, Rejali said.


"Torture is a sign that a government either does not enjoy the trust of the people it governs or cannot recruit informers for a surveillance system. In both cases, torture to obtain information is a sign of institutional decay and desperation," wrote Rejali, "and torture accelerates this process, destroying the bonds of loyalty, respect and trust that keep information flowing. As any remaining sources of intelligence dry up, governments have to torture even more."

Psychological torture has persisted in theaters such as the Iraq War not because it necessarily works, but because the CIA has such an institutional history of the practice, McCoy said.

"The interrogators themselves tend to believe in its efficacy, and no matter what you do, you can't stop them once they start," he said, noting that the false sense of power one gets from inflicting torture only fuels more advanced brutality.

Medieval torture more organized

The Medieval or Dark Ages are widely held up as the standard-bearer in brutal and organized torture. Famous dreaded devices such as the rack, the spiked Iron Maiden coffin and a very unpleasant, pyramid-shaped seat called the Judas Cradle were used to coerce victims into providing some desired information, often a false confession.

Despite the seemingly barbaric nature of Medieval torture, however, the methods used were actually part of an organized system of justice, as opposed to the clandestine nature of the interrogations allegedly being conducted by the CIA, Rejali said.

Medieval torture was neither sadistic nor savage compared to modern torture and was no more or less rational or driven by urgent security concerns, Rejali said.

"The only reason the question [of urgency] appears more interesting for us is because morally those are the only ways democratic societies are able to justify it to themselves," he said, adding that "the search for heretics was always a serious one, just as the search for terrorists is today."

Medieval Torture's 10 Biggest Myths
The Top 10 Battles for Control of Iraq
Innocent Suspects Confess Under Pressure
Original Story: Torture Has a Long History ... of Not Working
Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s, Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!

mrg666
10-20-2007, 10:39 AM
"The only reason the question [of urgency] appears more interesting for us is because morally those are the only ways democratic societies are able to justify it to themselves," he said, adding that "the search for heretics was always a serious one, just as the search for terrorists is today."

when western prisoners are being held ( bigley ) is it not urgent to gain intel regards his wherabouts ?
if suicide bombings , ambushes etc are being planned

Gaffer
10-20-2007, 12:39 PM
If interrogation methods don't work there is no need to take prisoners.

For this jerk to say medieval methods were more humane than modern day methods is just plain stupid.

bullypulpit
10-24-2007, 07:42 AM
If interrogation methods don't work there is no need to take prisoners.

For this jerk to say medieval methods were more humane than modern day methods is just plain stupid.

Torture IS NOT interrogation. The US Army Field Manual bars the use of water-boarding, beatings, sleep and food deprivation and other tactics which have been advocated by the Bush administration in the interrogation of detainees at GITMO and elsewhere.

There is no scientific evidence to substantiate the claims by the Bush administration and its fawning syncophants, that such interrogation methods work. Quite the contrary, an report found <a href=http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf>HERE</a> finds the opposite to be true.

<blockquote>"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon's senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

Kleinman wrote that intelligence gathered with coercion is sometimes inaccurate or false, noting that isolation, a tactic U.S. officials have used regularly, causes "profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort" and can "significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."</blockquote>

Not only is it illegal under US and international law as well as US treaty obligations, torture is counter productive, producing false leads and intelligence...whatever the victim thinks will make the torture stop.

Torture places a nation on a slippery slope. If some torture is acceptable in pursuit of the greater good, why not ALL torture then? If a detainee is too tough a nut to crack, why not torture his wife...? His daughter...? Even though they be innocent of any crime. Because that is, ultimately, what you are supporting. If you condone torture in a "limited" circumstance the logical step to applying such methods on a wider and wider scope becomes easier each time the net is cast wider.

PostmodernProphet
10-24-2007, 07:50 AM
Inflicting pain to get information is a practice with deep roots as well as modern relevance, in light of the recent statements by President George W. Bush claiming the U.S. government does not use torture on political prisoners, despite some evidence to the contrary.

I think this paragraph summarizes all the errors of the author.....inflicting pain is not the key to successful interogation....inflicting fear is.....

and, I have seen no evidence that the US government uses inflicting pain as a method of interrogation....if the author is going to use "inflicting pain" as the definition of torture, then he negates his own claims.....

bullypulpit
10-25-2007, 12:05 PM
I think this paragraph summarizes all the errors of the author.....inflicting pain is not the key to successful interogation....inflicting fear is.....

and, I have seen no evidence that the US government uses inflicting pain as a method of interrogation....if the author is going to use "inflicting pain" as the definition of torture, then he negates his own claims.....

Follow the link I posted...Even fear provides less than actionable intel.

manu1959
10-25-2007, 01:10 PM
so let me see if i have this right......

prior to 911 the us did not torture anyone......after 911 bush implimented torture.....

prior to 911 the us had been hit by terrorists on us soil twice and had us intrests, embassies, ships, civilianscaptured....how many times.....

since bush started personally torturing freedom fighters......we have been hit?

bullypulpit
10-25-2007, 01:19 PM
so let me see if i have this right......

prior to 911 the us did not torture anyone......after 911 bush implimented torture.....

prior to 911 the us had been hit by terrorists on us soil twice and had us intrests, embassies, ships, civilianscaptured....how many times.....

since bush started personally torturing freedom fighters......we have been hit?

One does not follow the other. And, monkey-boy, terrorists are not "freedom-fighters".

manu1959
10-25-2007, 01:26 PM
One does not follow the other. And, monkey-boy, terrorists are not "freedom-fighters".

so did the freedom fighters just give up?......they are fighting for their freedom.....that makes them freedom fighters......they are fighting against the evil torturing opressor ...have been for the last 2000 years....

i am curious.....why do the tactics used to win a war concern you......isn't the point to win.....as a famous man once said......" there has to be rules in a knife fight".... "rules in a knife fight?!" sombody say 123 go.....123 go".....fight over

in war it is the result that is important not the process.....

bullypulpit
10-25-2007, 06:15 PM
so did the freedom fighters just give up?......they are fighting for their freedom.....that makes them freedom fighters......they are fighting against the evil torturing opressor ...have been for the last 2000 years....

i am curious.....why do the tactics used to win a war concern you......isn't the point to win.....as a famous man once said......" there has to be rules in a knife fight".... "rules in a knife fight?!" sombody say 123 go.....123 go".....fight over

in war it is the result that is important not the process.....

Not only are you intellectually bankrupt, you are morally bankrupt as well. Benjamin Netanyahu, in his 1986 book, "<i>Terrorism: How the West Can Win</i>" made it very clear that the notion of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." was utter nonsense.

Your analogy between a war and a knife fight is awkward at best, just plain stupid at worst. A knife fight is a one on one fight...the loser will likely leave on a stretcher or a body bag. A traditional war, or even a non-linear conflict such as that against a terrorist organization involves a vast number of players, most of whom are innocents likely to get caught in the cross-fire. Adopt wholesale the tactics of the terrorists and you become the terrorist. For America to do so would give the terrorists a victory they could never achieve on their own.

bullypulpit
10-30-2007, 02:29 PM
Bump.