Flyboy...I was wondering when you would show up. Again a big difference between Psyc. 101 and reality. If everything learned threw these sessions was made public...it would not be intel ...would it !!! Again the question....just what would you do, to get vital data, from someone to save your people ?
Torture in Iraq- Beyond Abu Gahraib
- Thread starter NikoFoxFire
- Start date
- Status
Selfdfenz
Member
What Art said.
S-
S-
CleverName
Member
Arc-lite - what if there was no guarantee that some guy's information is legit? There are documented cases of police interrogations which lead suspects to admit to crimes they in no way could have commited. I can look some up if you want.
If you torture anybody enough, he'll admit to have shot Lincoln as part of a vast conspiracy headed by the preserved head of Genghis Khan. Does that mean any of it is true? No. And if you believed it, or some equally bogus but legitimate information was true, and acted on the information, wouldn't you be diverting your attention and resources away from the real threat, whatever it may be?
If you torture anybody enough, he'll admit to have shot Lincoln as part of a vast conspiracy headed by the preserved head of Genghis Khan. Does that mean any of it is true? No. And if you believed it, or some equally bogus but legitimate information was true, and acted on the information, wouldn't you be diverting your attention and resources away from the real threat, whatever it may be?
Flyboy
Member
Arc-Lite:
A big part of my essay there was explaining precisely why the data we get may or may not be useful. In fact, bad intel can be worse than no intel at all. Even utilitarian ethics fail when utility isn't served.
Firstly Flyboy... in no way I am taking an offensive position towards you.... I believe your position, is just and a necessity, in the world of today....it is one side of the ballance.. your essay is correct in support of one position....BUT the realities of todays world... are never a simple, one position, black or white question.....not all intel is good, not all intel is bad Yes bad intel, is of no value, this is why it usually must be supported by other threads of data.... but in no way is no intel better, then bad or any intel. Yes people say anything under stress, but..who is to say its value at that time... its like poker, you must sit down at the table, to be in the game....and your right no guarantees...of the intels quality, or even for that matter, news reports. It is a very fine line, and again, I put the question out there...to everyone.... Just what steps would YOU take to gain valuable data...to save your brothers and sisters?
Arc-Lite: you keep throwing the question out "what would you do to get the information to save your brothers or sisters".
That's a flawed argument. Read flyboy's post again.
You remind me of the fellow defending the government theft ponzi scheme known as social security by saying "Could you look a little dirty faced girl in the face and tell her that although you understand the terrible hardships she faces, you can't give her daddy a government job?".
That's a flawed argument. Read flyboy's post again.
You remind me of the fellow defending the government theft ponzi scheme known as social security by saying "Could you look a little dirty faced girl in the face and tell her that although you understand the terrible hardships she faces, you can't give her daddy a government job?".
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Sticking lit cigarettes in the ears of detainees? Unleashing German shepherds against naked unarmed prisoners? Beating detainees to death? Ramming lightsticks up their asses?"
That may or may not be "true fact". I don't know.
If true, sure, it's torture and the perpetrators should be punished.
My problem with these sorts of allegations is that they sorta fall in with so much of the real BS about how we were gonna lose out against Saddam's poison gas, or how his dug-in troops were going to kill thousands of US soldiers or how we would encounter nothing but hatred...
The negatives spouted by the America-haters--both internal and external--that have had so much repudiation by fact make it difficult for me to believe that real torture is any sort of policy-level facet of our occupation. It certainly is out of the norm from anything I ever saw in my own years in the Army.
Yeah, there was humiliation. Yeah, it wasn't the right way to behave. But, torture it wasn't.
Art
That may or may not be "true fact". I don't know.
If true, sure, it's torture and the perpetrators should be punished.
My problem with these sorts of allegations is that they sorta fall in with so much of the real BS about how we were gonna lose out against Saddam's poison gas, or how his dug-in troops were going to kill thousands of US soldiers or how we would encounter nothing but hatred...
The negatives spouted by the America-haters--both internal and external--that have had so much repudiation by fact make it difficult for me to believe that real torture is any sort of policy-level facet of our occupation. It certainly is out of the norm from anything I ever saw in my own years in the Army.
Yeah, there was humiliation. Yeah, it wasn't the right way to behave. But, torture it wasn't.
Art
Flyboy
Member
Arc-Lite
As you say, neither do I hold any grudge against you. I've said many times, my favorite thing about this forum is that it allows gentlemen to have honest debates over heartfelt positions, without disintegrating into pointless name-calling and other irrelevance. Discussing all sides of an issue is critical to forming an informed opinion. It is in this spirit of gentlemanly debate that I must disagree with you.
You are a commander in a war zone. Call it Vend. You have a fixed number of troops in Vend. You receive intelligence saying that Vendi troops are massing to attack you on the eastern front in four hours. What do you do? Do you send reinforcements to the eastern front? Mind you, it's going to take nearly that long to move the reinforcements there, so you don't have a lot of time to corroborate evidence. There are four possible outcomes of this situation. 1. The intel is true, and you send reinforcements. 2. The intel is true, and you don't. 3. The intel is false, and you do. 4. The intel is false, and you don't.
In case 1, you've made the right decision. You successfully repel the Vendi attack. In case 2, you presumably rejected the intel because you thought it was unreliable. Too bad, your position is overrun. In case 4, you made the right decision. In case 3, not only did you defend the wrong position, but you've moved the reinforcements further from other fronts. If another front is attacked, not only will you be overrun, but it will take even longer for reinforcements to arrive, resulting in greater casualties and damage than if you'd left the reinforcing troops in a neutral location.
This scenario is obviously contrived and oversimplified, but it illustrates the potential for harm that results from bad intelligence. To choose a less abstract example, consider the entire Iraq war from a political standpoint. President Bush is taking enormous heat right now from the media and the public over the lack of WsMD found in Iraq. He acted upon intelligence that said Saddam was building these weapons. That intel was wrong. Guess who's getting roasted in the press? Political battles certainly aren't a war zone, but the principle is the same: bad intelligence can motivate actions that are not helpful, and, in some cases, actively worse than doing nothing.
Again, this is all utilitarian in nature. We still haven't addressed the Kantian questions of A) whether it's right to do such things in the first place (I argue that it isn't), and B) what of the innocents?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not unsympathetic to the soldiers in the field. After the attacks, there was a good chance that my dad was going to be sent "thataway" (he couldn't be specific as to where). Fortunately, mission requirements changed, and he ended up being sent to (relatively safe) Turkey instead. That said, he and I have discussed this issue, and he agrees with me. He signed up of his own free will because he believes in the principles upon which this country was founded (values which include a nearly-absolutist view of the Second Amendment). It is because he instilled those values in me that I hold the views I do (and, for that, I am eternally grateful). That said, as an officer in the armed forces, and an attorney familiar with the laws of armed conflict, he agrees that such techniques are A) wrong, and B) a betrayal of the principles for which we claim to be fighting. He knew the risks when he signed on the dotted line, and considered the values involved to be worth the risk.
As to saving my brothers and sisters, well, I have an answer, but it's pretty cold. One of the hardest lessons of command is learning when to send your men into battle, knowing that they're not going to come out alive. War sucks, plain and simple. People die. It sounds terribly cold, but sometimes you have to send your own men to die for an abstract principle. Those men signed on knowing the risks. They decided that their lives were outweighed by the importance of the principles for which they fight. It's easy, of course, for me to say this from the comfort of my couch in Oklahoma. I've never been in combat; the closest I've been is today's IPSC match, and I know it's not even close. Nonetheless, I know what I felt when it looked like dad was going to be sent out there. It sucked, but I was proud as hell of him for being willing to risk it for something so important. Thinking that he might have been sent over and killed in vain tears me apart. Fortunately for me, that didn't happen, but what of the people who's fathers, sons, brothers, and friends did die for a principle, a principle that was violated in the name of battlefield expediency?
As you say, neither do I hold any grudge against you. I've said many times, my favorite thing about this forum is that it allows gentlemen to have honest debates over heartfelt positions, without disintegrating into pointless name-calling and other irrelevance. Discussing all sides of an issue is critical to forming an informed opinion. It is in this spirit of gentlemanly debate that I must disagree with you.
Consider, for the moment, the following hypothetical situation.
You are a commander in a war zone. Call it Vend. You have a fixed number of troops in Vend. You receive intelligence saying that Vendi troops are massing to attack you on the eastern front in four hours. What do you do? Do you send reinforcements to the eastern front? Mind you, it's going to take nearly that long to move the reinforcements there, so you don't have a lot of time to corroborate evidence. There are four possible outcomes of this situation. 1. The intel is true, and you send reinforcements. 2. The intel is true, and you don't. 3. The intel is false, and you do. 4. The intel is false, and you don't.
In case 1, you've made the right decision. You successfully repel the Vendi attack. In case 2, you presumably rejected the intel because you thought it was unreliable. Too bad, your position is overrun. In case 4, you made the right decision. In case 3, not only did you defend the wrong position, but you've moved the reinforcements further from other fronts. If another front is attacked, not only will you be overrun, but it will take even longer for reinforcements to arrive, resulting in greater casualties and damage than if you'd left the reinforcing troops in a neutral location.
This scenario is obviously contrived and oversimplified, but it illustrates the potential for harm that results from bad intelligence. To choose a less abstract example, consider the entire Iraq war from a political standpoint. President Bush is taking enormous heat right now from the media and the public over the lack of WsMD found in Iraq. He acted upon intelligence that said Saddam was building these weapons. That intel was wrong. Guess who's getting roasted in the press? Political battles certainly aren't a war zone, but the principle is the same: bad intelligence can motivate actions that are not helpful, and, in some cases, actively worse than doing nothing.
Again, this is all utilitarian in nature. We still haven't addressed the Kantian questions of A) whether it's right to do such things in the first place (I argue that it isn't), and B) what of the innocents?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not unsympathetic to the soldiers in the field. After the attacks, there was a good chance that my dad was going to be sent "thataway" (he couldn't be specific as to where). Fortunately, mission requirements changed, and he ended up being sent to (relatively safe) Turkey instead. That said, he and I have discussed this issue, and he agrees with me. He signed up of his own free will because he believes in the principles upon which this country was founded (values which include a nearly-absolutist view of the Second Amendment). It is because he instilled those values in me that I hold the views I do (and, for that, I am eternally grateful). That said, as an officer in the armed forces, and an attorney familiar with the laws of armed conflict, he agrees that such techniques are A) wrong, and B) a betrayal of the principles for which we claim to be fighting. He knew the risks when he signed on the dotted line, and considered the values involved to be worth the risk.
As to saving my brothers and sisters, well, I have an answer, but it's pretty cold. One of the hardest lessons of command is learning when to send your men into battle, knowing that they're not going to come out alive. War sucks, plain and simple. People die. It sounds terribly cold, but sometimes you have to send your own men to die for an abstract principle. Those men signed on knowing the risks. They decided that their lives were outweighed by the importance of the principles for which they fight. It's easy, of course, for me to say this from the comfort of my couch in Oklahoma. I've never been in combat; the closest I've been is today's IPSC match, and I know it's not even close. Nonetheless, I know what I felt when it looked like dad was going to be sent out there. It sucked, but I was proud as hell of him for being willing to risk it for something so important. Thinking that he might have been sent over and killed in vain tears me apart. Fortunately for me, that didn't happen, but what of the people who's fathers, sons, brothers, and friends did die for a principle, a principle that was violated in the name of battlefield expediency?
Actually some very good opinions on both sides, but I had to laugh...
Mooslim guy is made to waggle his wiener in front of his buddies and some chick and that does irreparable harm to his psyche - will take years of counseling by soft-spoken psychologists to mitigate the incredible trauma.
Same Mooslim guy collaborates on a video featuring hacking the head off some jew while mumbling "Allahu Akbar" and his psyche is just dandy.
I think this Mooslim had better lighten up and get with the program or wiener-waggling is going to be the least of his worries.
If you want to screw with the US you might want to check our resumé first
And yeah, I know, Saddam and his band of nutjobs did absolutely nothing against us whatsoever, and it was all created by W in Texas because he is an out-of-control cowboy, and Hitler too (sarcasm alert for the lefties).
G
Mooslim guy is made to waggle his wiener in front of his buddies and some chick and that does irreparable harm to his psyche - will take years of counseling by soft-spoken psychologists to mitigate the incredible trauma.
Same Mooslim guy collaborates on a video featuring hacking the head off some jew while mumbling "Allahu Akbar" and his psyche is just dandy.
I think this Mooslim had better lighten up and get with the program or wiener-waggling is going to be the least of his worries.
If you want to screw with the US you might want to check our resumé first
And yeah, I know, Saddam and his band of nutjobs did absolutely nothing against us whatsoever, and it was all created by W in Texas because he is an out-of-control cowboy, and Hitler too (sarcasm alert for the lefties).
G
DesertEagle613
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 221
Flyboy,
Before we start saying that all torture produces flawed results, let's think about it for a bit. If torture really produced bad results most of the time, given the high cost of poor intelligence you have outlined, most governments would stop using it, right?
I am willing to believe that US interrogators aren't doing a good job separating good intel from bad. But consider the Israeli GSS. When a terrorist is captured, the first thing that happens is he gets "debriefed." I know nothing about the techniques used except from hearsay, so I will avoid comment. But their track record is very, very good.
Between the info they get from "debriefing" and the GSS's extensive network of informers, they are able to prevent over 90% of attempted terrorist attacks.
Part of the difference, I'm guessing, is that the Israelis can get a better sense of what is real and what is BS by comparing it to other data they already have.
Before we start saying that all torture produces flawed results, let's think about it for a bit. If torture really produced bad results most of the time, given the high cost of poor intelligence you have outlined, most governments would stop using it, right?
I am willing to believe that US interrogators aren't doing a good job separating good intel from bad. But consider the Israeli GSS. When a terrorist is captured, the first thing that happens is he gets "debriefed." I know nothing about the techniques used except from hearsay, so I will avoid comment. But their track record is very, very good.
Between the info they get from "debriefing" and the GSS's extensive network of informers, they are able to prevent over 90% of attempted terrorist attacks.
Part of the difference, I'm guessing, is that the Israelis can get a better sense of what is real and what is BS by comparing it to other data they already have.
Spiphel Rike
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 152
This torture thing has way too many grey areas for my liking. Sure, the torturing might save the lives of you and your men. Sure, the _might_ be a terrorist or bad guy. The thing that gets me is that a lot of these guys were released with no charges (in iraq that is). I also severely detest the smiling female guard leaning over a corpse. Doing that to a dead soldier or person, no matter what side he was on is unacceptable.
just my two cents.
just my two cents.
Flyboy
Member
I won't say "just dandy," but yeah, that's pretty close. Particularly when conditioned from a young age, the human mind can bind to some pretty amazing ideas. Religious zealotry--any religion, not just Islam--is just one of them. I could name any number of religious cults (at least one of which would sue me for calling them a cult) to illustrate that point. The very fact that some of them are capable of sawing off a man's head without any apparent reaction is proof that they are shocked by different things--I was bothered just by the audio from the Nick Berg execution. Physically ill. Those sorry butchers didn't seem to have any reaction at all (and were cowards besides, for hiding behind masks.) I'm not excusing their actions; in fact, I'd tie their nooses myself, given the opportunity.
Nonetheless, they do have a different definition of "shocking." We all do, really, but the differences become more pronounced across cultures. It's also worth noting that the element of force changes things significantly; somebody who might voluntarily "streak" is liable to be humiliated by being forced at gunpoint to walk naked around the neighborhood. The lack of control, combined with the sexual aspect (in the context of their culture), is specifically intended to break their spirit and their resistance. That break is induced by intentional infliction of severe distress, which is pretty much the definition of torture, whatever methods you use.
Flyboy, your premise is correct only if you look at each case seperately. That's not how it works though. Each debreifing is a piece of the puzzle, and it's when the puzzle is whole do you get valuable info.
For example, if you debrief one guy, he might be telling the truth, or lieing. But if you debrief 100 guys, and 25 of them tell you the same thing, now you're on to something. Then you can then confirm the intel by other means, like flying a drone over the area, or raiding a house, or grabbing up a guy who's name keeps popping up.
There is plenty of history where coercive methods worked, and worked well. The Germans had many successes against partizans, for example, using rather unpleasant methods, which make what the rogue guards did look like a Sunday picnic. The whole system of resistance "cells" is to compartimentalize the damage when someone talked, because they would always talk in the end.
For example, if you debrief one guy, he might be telling the truth, or lieing. But if you debrief 100 guys, and 25 of them tell you the same thing, now you're on to something. Then you can then confirm the intel by other means, like flying a drone over the area, or raiding a house, or grabbing up a guy who's name keeps popping up.
There is plenty of history where coercive methods worked, and worked well. The Germans had many successes against partizans, for example, using rather unpleasant methods, which make what the rogue guards did look like a Sunday picnic. The whole system of resistance "cells" is to compartimentalize the damage when someone talked, because they would always talk in the end.
coylh
Member
DesertEagle613, where did you hear "over 90%"?
Blackburn....I failed to see any direct responce to my question....only that intel does not work, when received from less then pleasant fashions. Dealing with war prisoners, is just a very very small piece of a larger puzzle when in the intel game...and all the successful useful data, is acted upon and not placed in the local news, for the arm chair analyst. Focus blackburn...focus, no one is talking social security Flyboy.... you designed your hypothetical situation...from your conclusion forward, so yes, in this situation, it would be of little values. Again it is not so black and white... you check your intel from as many seperate angles as your able... and make your decisive call, which leads to the next step, and next call. War is a thick fog, without guide posts, lacking the will and focus to win, will achieve that goal. So again I ask, just what would you find "acceptable" to gain the intel, to save your own life, father life, mothers life, brothers life, sisters life?
Torture is as likely to provide incorrect intel than not.
I am also opposed to torturing people who were just pulled off the streets because of a snitch.
I am also opposed to torture, period. We're better than that.
And I say again, where are the hazings that involve cigarettes being stuck in ears, forced sodomy, and attack dogs let loose on one's naked person?
PS:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=basic+sentence+structure
I am also opposed to torturing people who were just pulled off the streets because of a snitch.
I am also opposed to torture, period. We're better than that.
And I say again, where are the hazings that involve cigarettes being stuck in ears, forced sodomy, and attack dogs let loose on one's naked person?
PS:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=basic+sentence+structure
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
I think a lot of the confusion comes when people try to compare tortures. 'Well, they cut off his penis, while they only shaved his head. Obviously the former is worse than the latter, so the latter is better.'
There may be smart people out there who can sort everything out, but I'm probably not one of them. I know the world is not clear-cut, but theoretical models can be. So I like the idea of either following the Geneva Convention, or not. (assuming that prisoners are being taken)
Then you have smaller, more easily differentiated grey areas, like in the WW2 movies when the German guards hand out blankets before the Red Cross people come, and collect them afterwards.
BTW flyboy good essay. Question; what if one convinces the prisoner that their lies can be detected, and hurts them twice as much when they catch them lieing? Would that result in the brain avoiding lies? Maybe, for instance, you could let them say some stuff, and then when you are pretty sure they told a lie somewhere in the last few minues a guy comes in a whispers to you. Then you shout 'You lied to us!' and hurt them. Lol maybe I'm messed up, but I think that might work on me.
There may be smart people out there who can sort everything out, but I'm probably not one of them. I know the world is not clear-cut, but theoretical models can be. So I like the idea of either following the Geneva Convention, or not. (assuming that prisoners are being taken)
Then you have smaller, more easily differentiated grey areas, like in the WW2 movies when the German guards hand out blankets before the Red Cross people come, and collect them afterwards.
BTW flyboy good essay. Question; what if one convinces the prisoner that their lies can be detected, and hurts them twice as much when they catch them lieing? Would that result in the brain avoiding lies? Maybe, for instance, you could let them say some stuff, and then when you are pretty sure they told a lie somewhere in the last few minues a guy comes in a whispers to you. Then you shout 'You lied to us!' and hurt them. Lol maybe I'm messed up, but I think that might work on me.
CleverName
Member
Problem is, the guy doesn't kow he's lying. If he's that broken, his mind is malleable. At that point, believe it or not, he believe's he's telling the truth. He believes in what he's saying with the utmost conviction. Beat a guy long enough, and he'll tell you the sky's green, AND pass a polygraph about it - and without the polygraph faking training.
Doing the above is just gonna get you a new, more believable lie.
EDIT: changed a unintendedl emphasis.
Doing the above is just gonna get you a new, more believable lie.
EDIT: changed a unintendedl emphasis.
Last edited:
gc70
Member
[This question is not an endorsement of torture.]
The discussion of the psychological aspects of torture made me wonder about the way torture is applied.
It sounds reasonable that the brain would react to torture by trying to construct a defense against the pain, even to the extent of self-delusion to try to make the torture stop.
So, is torture more effective if it is done so rapidly that the brain does not have time to react and build its defenses?
The discussion of the psychological aspects of torture made me wonder about the way torture is applied.
It sounds reasonable that the brain would react to torture by trying to construct a defense against the pain, even to the extent of self-delusion to try to make the torture stop.
So, is torture more effective if it is done so rapidly that the brain does not have time to react and build its defenses?
It just seams, the older I get, and the more I see, and experience, the less I believe in absolutes....or in general statements, saying intel does not work, needs some more thought. Intel is about collecting as much data as possible, and then sorting it out. Abu Gahrab, is not the center point, for Intel, or obtaining data from the enemy, rest assured the true data gathering spots, are not on the 60 minute places to visit. The guards at Abu Gahrab, were guards, some very sick guards, who now, will pay for their personal actions....they we not intel officers. I have asked "what would you do" enough, and it appears by the lack of a direct response, you may have answered the question within yourself.
jefnvk
Member
When the US government engages in torture, everyone comes out of it embarassed and humiliated, but alive and probably in better health than when they came in. When other countries do it, people have a tendency to lose body parts, and/or their life.
I won't disagree that it was abuse, and shouldn't have happened. I do disagree with calling it torture.
I wouldn't be suprised if not too far in the future, it was 'torture' to keep the prison at anything other than an even 72 degrees F.
The Corporate Guy
Member
Flyboy...Do you have any real experience with interrogation or torture, or are your insights academic?
The Corporate Guy
Member
Can torture elicit BAD information? ABSOLUTELY.
Is there a place for torture, from a purely pragmatic perspective, in an effective interrogation? ABSOLUTELY. By torture, I am referring to phsychological games, moderate sleep deprevation, etc. - - not slowly pounding a piece of rebar up someones rectum.
Is there a place for torture, from a purely pragmatic perspective, in an effective interrogation? ABSOLUTELY. By torture, I am referring to phsychological games, moderate sleep deprevation, etc. - - not slowly pounding a piece of rebar up someones rectum.
what, haven't tried that with the missus yet?- Status
