Reasoned discourse on torture - Ride Fast & Cryptic Subterranean
Jay.Mac and I have been discussing interrogation by post / comment. I'm posting his latest comments here with my response. Jay.Mac's statements are indented.
My first post Your wrong, Mr. President w/Jay.Mac's comment.
My second post Torture is wrong and ineffective - a reply w/Jay.Mac's comment below.
RF said...Maybe he broke and maybe he planned to after trying to appear to resist. We don't know if another technique would have worked.Jay.Mac said...
This guy claims that "torture" does not help collect intelligence- and yet it was waterboarding which broke Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Without those two minutes of extreme discomfort he would not have given up the information he possessed.
RF - OK, harsh interrogation isn't necessarily torture. These terrorists though, are they criminals or enemies in a war? There are long established rules for both. Or are you saying they are neither? I say they are criminals or enemy soldiers.Let me put my position clear- I'm in support of harsh interrogation techniques against high value foreign national terrorists who are waging war against America- terrorists who deliberately target innocent civilians for mass murder.
RF - I agree with you completely. That treatment is harsh and not torture.Some of the harsh techniques which some would like to see banned are routinely carried out on military personnel as part of their training- to let them know what to expect from capture and questioning. In fact I'm sure a lot of military people have been kept sleep deprived, wet, cold and in stress positions during training as a matter of course.
RF - Although now a redundant question, I'd add I would probably advocate tougher training for our people, justified by the need for realistic training.Good enough for troops but too terrible for terrorists?
RF - I'm not condemning harsh, I'm condemning torture. I can't defend the FBI guy beyond what he said, I don't know anything more about him. The problem with the "ticking time-bomb" scenario is it's used to justify torture, without quantification. Is a bomb that may kill enough justification? Or do 10 people have to be threatened? Where's the line?I say it again, if we disavow the use of harsh techniques, what alternative is left? Despite what some say, there are hard-core terrorists who would love nothing more than to die for their cause. The FBI interrogator you linked to says he has dealt with some pretty bad characters- does he have experience of war-time enemy combatants who are devout jihadists? He also claims that the "ticking time-bomb" scenario is uncommon, and then goes on to say that it just doesn't exist. Apart from contradicting himself, it's absurd to say that such a situation can never happen.
I agree it's absurd to say something can never happen.
RF - You treat them like enemy soldiers, follow the Geneva Convention rules the U.S. agreed to, or you treat them like accused criminals.Is it really in the realms of fiction to suppose that a terrorist might be captured with knowledge of an attack about to be carried out? It's an impossible situation? I don't buy it and I don't think we should hamper our ability to gather intelligence on the basis of supposition that things haven't been that bad in the past so they can never be that bad in the future. Suppose we catch a Zawahiri or a Bin Laden- someone in the upper echelons of Al Qaeda- with knowledge of some or all of their planned attacks- what do we do with them?
RF - I think the number of times waterboading was used is irrelevant, it's torture and it's wrong to do it. I have no experience with harsh interrogation and I say torture is damaging to foreign policy. If that comes across as me claiming I'm a foreign policy expert, it was not my intent.Furthermore, his initial complaint about waterboarding is to shrug off the fact that it has only been done 3 times- thus refusing to acknowledge that it is not a common practice but an exceptional one. He then goes straight on to denounce it, not as an ineffective technique, but as damaging to effective foreign policy. His FBI questioning experience has thus promoted him to foreign policy expert. Neat trick.
RF - I don't know about the FBI guy on that one. Killing the enemy creates the natural consequence of blow back or revenge. That comes with defence of yourself or the nation. How you kill the enemy, how you treat them, will alter the nature of said revenge and / or the eventual peace. This isn't exactly a fair comparison, but I've known men who hate Germany and Germans because of what Germany did in War 2. I can't blame them for that. I've seen the tattoo.His next comment is that the waterboarded individuals have been elevated to mythic status by the means of their questioning and that Al Qaeda will take revenge on America because of it. Perhaps in the same way that the 9/11 bombers have been idolised- and no doubt spurred others on to want to emulate them. What about the Zarqawis of this world- does he also suggest we stop eliminating active terrorists because someone, somewhere might get it into their head to revenge them?
RF - You mean "alledged criminal" captured by police, right? I personally think they should be treated as enemy soldiers, the Geneva Convention applies. What goes with that is the enemy has 0.5 seconds to surrender or they're dead.Anyway, where do you draw the line- playing Britney Spears, sleep deprivation, cold and wet conditions, stress positions, waterboarding? Or do you think they should be treated like any civilian American citizen criminal captured by police?
RF - I would or could agree if we can agree on what a terrorist / terrorism is. It's ill defined. Your definition was used against the colonists fighting to secede from English rule, against the South during the War Between the States, against the French Underground during War 2.In my view they are outside of civilian law- and even the treatment accorded by the Geneva Convention- as they are non-uniformed, fight for no nation state and commit acts of terror against civilians as a matter of course. In engaging in terrorism they have forfeited their rights.
RF - I think the question is, what is a harsh technique vs. torture? Is involuntarily drugging a suspected enemy torture? I frankly don't know, but I suspect it might be so I am opposed to it. I too am concerned for the victims and don't really give a shit if enemy combatants are uncomfortable. However, if we do it to them, it's OK for them to do it to ours. The reverse, they did it to us first, doesn't mean we can now do whatever they did. There needs to be limits.The reality of it is that if we ban all harsh techniques the consequence is that we may not be able to get them to talk at all. Frankly, my concern for innocent civilians, such as those who died on 9/11, outweighs my concerns for the comfort of a terrorist.
Digg - Reddit - Fark - Del.icio.us
6 Incoming!:
Some people thought it was harsh to play loud music at Noriega - what is the difference between a harsh technique vs. torture? We're our own worst enemy: Brittany Spears, Dr. Phil, or Oprah? Who get's to walk across hot coals - on purpose? Depak Chopra? Aaarghhh!
Being forced to listen to Howard Cosell would break anyone, and it is torture.
Don't forget, the Geneva Convention rules don't protect terrorists.
And just for the record, some American military personnel are waterboarded as part of their training. It is considered a "simulation" of torture because it creates the very unpleasant sensation of drowning without causing any permanent harm.
First of all, thanks for the reasoned debate Ride Fast- it's a pleasure to discuss this with you.
According to reports the interrogators waterboarded each other in training so that they knew exactly what it was like- most of them lasted less than thirty seconds. They stated that Khalid Sheik Mohammed lasted more than two minutes.
Waterboarding broke him when all other techniques had failed- and we will probably never know all of the intelligence that he gave up.
I can see your point- and why I'm disagreeing with you; it's all in the definition of how we treat and define terrorists.
As TriggerFinger points out they are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they are terrorists- they hide among a civilian population and target predominantly civilians. They cannot be treated as civilian criminals but they can not also be treated like enemy soldiers; and I'd be the first to argue that enemy soldiers deserve to be treated well.
Terrorists have abrogated their rights by engaging in terrorism. I can see the historical connection that causes some Americans to quail about the term today- but let's make this very clear; the jihadists we fight today are in no way, shape or form like those who fought for their freedom from the British. The jihadists detonate bombs as US soldiers are standing with crowds of kids, they fly planes into buildings, they cut off the heads of their prisoners and video tape it, the mutilate the bodies of US soldiers captured in battle, they wrap themselves in explosives and then blow up themselves and crowds of women and children, they use women and children as bombs against their enemy.
These are not freedom fighters, they are not the minutemen- Al Qaeda launched 9/11 from a country half way around the world aimed at killing as many civilians as they could; they weren't struggling under the yoke of American oppression- they had instead set up base under the benevolent eye of bloodthirsty Taliban dictators. The terrorists in Iraq have killed many more civilians deliberately than they have US troops. Furthermore, they are not fighting for freedom but to establish an oppressive, tyrannical system in the hopes of gradually creating a global caliphate which would tyrannise the entire world.
These people have no claim to be treated as America would treat prisoners of war because of the tactics that they routinely engage in.
As for the argument that the use of water-boarding means that the US has lost some mythical moral high-ground and which means that the enemy has the right to mistreat captured US soldiers- I personally think it's nonsense. In reality we can only dream that a US soldier captured by terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan be treated as well as we treat their people- even when they're waterboarded. Conducted under close supervision and with doctors present to ensure that the prisoner is not unduly harmed. Compare that to the fates of Tucker and Menchaca, two American soldiers wounded and captured by terrorists in Iraq-
"Hearts cut out. Their penises were cut off and shoved into their mouths, ears and noses cut off, while being tortured, and then finally killed."
They were so badly disfigured that they needed to be identified through fingerprints and DNA testing.
In my opinion, water-boarding is an unpleasant but necessary tool in the war we're currently engaged in. It should be used sparingly and only after all other measures have failed. But we should not allow it to be banned now just in case it is needed at some point in the future.
When lives may very well be riding on the line and an interrogator has failed to get the information he needs to save American lives do we expect him to sit back and let innocent people die? Or would there be outrage that dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of Americans were allowed to die because his hands were tied and he couldn't water-board the terrorist?
We are fighting against monsters right now- and that's no exaggeration. Let's consider a couple of imaginary situations-
Say that a terrorist with knowledge of 9/11 had been captured before the attack took place. Intelligence agencies know that there's a lot of chatter and have knowledge of a possible attack using airlines- they perhaps even know, having captured this guy, that the terrorists intend to murder a large number of American civilians. They know too that the attack is imminent- the jihadist is ready to die and refuses to talk after lengthy questioning. Time is running out for them to take action. Because all other techniques have failed to break the terrorist they have only one option left- to use waterboarding.
But they can't as Congress has banned it.
The attack goes ahead and 3,000 Americans are murdered. The interrogators, having experienced waterboarding themselves, know that they could have saved those lives. They are furious that they were permitted to use it on themselves but not on a terrorist with valuable life-saving intelligence.
Here's scenario number two- we know already that jihadists are more than willing to target women and even children. Tali Hatuel and Beslan are only two of many examples. If you don't know Tali Hatuel's story, by the way, you need to-
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/72
Now- last year there was a warning about suspect foreign nationals obtaining jobs driving school buses. Let's suppose that the authorities grab one of these terrorists, knowing that they are planning to attack an American school. They just don't know where or when. The jihadist, like so many of his compatriots, is not only prepared for death for his cause but is actually looking forward to it- questioning doesn't work.
Bush had recently vetoed a bill banning waterboarding but the new Democrat president has authorised the ban. Interrogators are thus left to stand by and watch as hundreds of American children are brutally murdered- in the full knowledge that they could have stopped it.
These might sound like impossible scenarios to the FBI "expert" but they are not beyond the realm of the real world. Beslan did happen, 9/11 did happen- and Al Qaeda is known not only for its long planning but repeated attempts at success.
We might not grab a terrorist knowing in advance that time is running out against a partially recognised attack- but we might grab a senior figure in the organisation with knowledge of that group's plans. Do we let him keep that knowledge to himself and let the dice fall were they may? Or do we take all necessary steps to finds out just who is planning to harm us and where and when?
My stance on the matter boils down to this- there are going to be times when we need to use waterboarding, a technique that is approved for use against our own interrogators in training. I agree that it should not be commonly used- and past history shows that it is not, but is instead kept for extreme circumstances. But I also say categorically that it should not and cannot be banned altogether because in doing so we are taking away a last-ditch but highly effective technique. A technique that could save the lives of troops in the field or citizens back home.
It comes down to this- waterboarding broke KSM. Without it, we would not have the intelligence he possessed. In banning waterboarding we are announcing that, no matter what the circumstances, we will not use this final step. We might know that hundreds or thousands of Americans are about to die- but the bill to ban waterboarding makes no exceptions. It simply cannot be used.
Some people apparently believe that this is a trade-off they are willing to accept. I disagree- we need to keep waterboarding on the table as an option. If you adopt the position that waterboarding cannot be used against terrorists then you have to accept that your concern for terrorists' short-term well-being outweighs our concern for the lives of American troops or American civilians, be it one or ten or a hundred. You're saying that brief moments of extreme but temporary terrorist discomfort are worth more than the lives of American troops and civilians.
Remember, no alternative technique is being suggested, they're just demanding that we stop using a technique which has already worked- regardless of the impact it has on our ability to combat them and their plans in the future.
One last point to consider- we use bombs and guns to kill and terribly wound enemy terrorists- but pouring some water over their face for a minute or so under controlled circumstances is beyond the pale?
Post a Comment