My questions for the people who say "it's not torture" and who downplay the effects

[dem629]

of the so-called "harsh interrogations."

You've heard them. They say it was only "dunking their heads under water." They say other methods just amounted to "putting someone in a box with a caterpillar." They say the detainees were never in any kind of physical or psychological jeopardy.

So, according to these people, these things were not that big a deal.

Then...why do it at all? If these methods were not bad experiences for those on the receiving end, what could we possibly gain from them? They'd just endure it, and go back to their cells laughing, right?

Oh, you say these methods worked? How so, if they're nothing unusual or different than routine interrogations?

[Believing Is Art]

1. I was just thinking about this last night

It's a double-edge sword, and both edges are dull.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. That is a great line!

Both edges are dull.

I'm stealin' it. :)


K&R for the OP

[Believing Is Art]

12. Thief!

Just kidding, go right ahead.

[Occam Bandage]

2. This leads to a question about the concept of interrogation in general.

The very purpose of an interrogation is to induce a person to provide information against their will. This would mean that any interrogation method is intended to determine how strongly a person resists giving information, and then to work on making talking more desirable while making the alternative progressively worse.

Torture, as I understand it, is any interrogation method that permanently wounds the subject mentally or physically. Yet it would seem to me that anything designed to induce people to do things their entire personality revolves around not doing is likely to leave deep mental scars.

At some point, there is and has to be a balance struck between the rights of the detainee and the benefits that would be gained by accessing the information the detainee has. Or does there? Can we say that interrogations should simply not occur, and be replaced by a combination of questioning and bribery? Is that even reasonable? I don't know.

[dem629]

5. I have no problems with verbal interrogations of any kind.

I'm not sure I understood your question, but I think you are asking whether it may be considered torture to verbally force/entice/etc. someone into a confession of some kind. Is that right?

[Qutzupalotl]

6. I heard one instance on NPR

where a detainee was treated with respect regarding his religion and his human rights. Immediately the man began cooperating with his captors because he realized everything Al Qaeda had told him about America was wrong.

So there is at least one instance where legal methods -- holding true to our ideals as a country -- produced good information. I don't know if this can apply in all circumstances, but then again, we only need a few to cooperate, not every single detainee.

[dem629]

8. I think that's the proper first step.

After that, harsh verbal interrogations are fine, in my opinion.

I'm ruling out physical harm.

[Believing Is Art]

9. I'm no interrogator, but I don't think it's that simple

Maybe with your average felon, but not with Al Qaeda. They don't care what you can do for them, and that's one reason why torture doesn't work. I think interrogators have to get to the root of why they joined Al Qaeda and dispel their beliefs. Kind of like deprogramming a cult member. If they joined because we tortured and believe we hate Islam, disprove that. If they joined because they bought into perversions of the Q'ran, use the Q'ran to show them why Al Qaeda is wrong.

I just don't think bribery would work with these detainees.

[TahitiNut]

17. "against their will"?? Nope. Not at all. The opposite, actually.

A skilled interrogator leverages on the subject's own motivations ... pride, hubris, arrogance ... to get them to GLADLY brag about such things. In some cases, the interrogator works to enhance the "Stockholm Syndrome" -- playing upon the innate human tendency to affiliate with those who have control over their well-being and are the "source" of food, shelter, health care, and other needs. A totally "Euclidian" context is created -- a kind of meritocracy" -- where "good" behavior is rewarded and "bad" behavior results in "benefits" and "luxuries" being taken away. One need not resort to inhumane treatment in order to obtain cooperative behavior ... and any PARENT that doesn't comprehend this at the core of their being doesn't deserve to have children.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Actually, I would say the the purpose of interrogation is to induce a

person to be willing to provide information. The more, and higher quality, information the better. Somebody who is delirious with pain and exhaustion is only going to give limited, low quality information - will in fact say anything to make it stop. No coercive questioning has always been more fruitful than any kind of torture. It just takes longer.

And the one case where time is of the essence, the so-called ticking clock? If there really IS a ticking clock and the person being interrogated knows it, he know how long he has to hold out, and that negates the efficacy of coercion.

Interrogation is about getting information. Torture is about getting the answer you want.

[napi21]

4. None of those excuses matter! IT'S A FELONY!!!!!!

Compare it to a guy who robs B of A because THEY charged him 30% interest on his credit card and he says that's stealing, so he robbed them to get his money back. It doesn't matter wether you see his point or not, what he did was a FELONY!

[dem629]

7. I know, but that's a different issue.

My point in posting those questions was to show that, even if the supporters dismiss the legal issues, their rationale for supporting the methods is illogical.

[DrZeeLit]

10. If anyone did those things to another person, say a neighbor they suspected of killing their cat,

the dunker (even mourning a dead cat) would be prosecuted.

If anyone is caught doing those things -- dunking and boxing up -- to a dog or a cat, that person is prosecuted.

If anyone did those things to a child, the person would be in jail for life.

And then... here's the kicker, for me.

All these people who are all over "right to life" with the "It's God's Law" in-your-face line.... isn't torture against God's Law? No matter what? What about all those Ten-Commandments-in-the-Courthouse people? Torture is against man's law AND God's law.

And finally.... didn't Christ say, "Whatever you do for the least of these you do for me"?

So torturing any human being, any child of God, is tantamount to torturing Jesus.

I am appalled (appalled I say) that the right wing has abandoned their standard-bearer so easily.

[90-percent]

11. downplay

How do you downplay the death of over 100 prisoners in US custody?

-90% jimmy

[TahitiNut]

13. Well, of course. It's obvious. It's only the logically-challenged who can't think their way ...

... out of a wet paper sack that buy into this specious bullshit, even without knowing anything else. It just doesn't wash. Period.

[dem629]

14. OK. Sorry to waste everyone's time.

[TahitiNut]

18. Well ... I'd be the last to say there aren't logically-challenged folks on DU ...

... who are otherwise kindly-oriented.

:evilgrin:

[Qutzupalotl]

19. Oh, no, not a waste of time at all!

Your pointed questions in the OP reveal the flaws in the enablers' arguments. You leave room for a respectful discussion. This is exactly the kind of thread I want to encourage, and is the reason why DU exists, in my opinion.

[ItNerd4life]

15. Think of it another way

The people being interrogated don't know that it won't harm them. So, at the moment they believe it will and it affects them.

Later on, they learn they weren't in any danger. It's a game of just how much you believe the person is going to harm you.

I'm still emotionally scared when I was a child and believed that Santa Claus existed. Then I was told the truth.
Am I emotionally scared over it? I refuse to answer that question on grounds of my emotional state of being. :)

There is a line between interrogation and torture, that is why this area is so gray. If you look at some police tactics,
many people could claim that it is torture.

Heck, go visit Freerepublic, that's torture.

[Echo In Light]

16. There's an unfortunately large % who will always trivialize data that ill fits the mainstream view

As far as what prompts certain individuals toward that position really isn't all that much different than those who rabidly denounce "crazy conspiracy theories."

The point for such people is to always downplay, trivialize, ignore and/or attack data that suggests serious criminal/sociopathic actions and motives. For them, to even suggest such a thing goes way beyond the pale...even if there's sufficient contradictory evidence.

From there it's always a matter of de-legitimizing and discrediting the sources for that evidence, and personally attacking any who give it the slightest credence.