MovieChat Forums > BrainDead (2016) Discussion > On torture... er.. "enhanced interrogati...

On torture... er.. "enhanced interrogation"

posted 8 years ago by philoj
14 replies | jump to latest

It's played as black comedy, but since torture and the "ticking clock scenario" were brought up, for the record I wanted to note here that torture has been debunked as a useful technique:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/25/new-research-suggests-enhanced-interrogation-not-effective.html

The CIA released a study indicating they got *no* useful intelligence from their prisoners in Guantanamo, and there are at least two instances where FBI interrogators were brought in after "enhanced techniques" failed and the FBI experts had the subjects talking within a day by simply building a rapport.

When you torture someone, they're going to tell you what you want to hear. You could torture me for the missile launch codes for the Russian Army and I'll give them to you, even though I'm a US citizen who's never been to Russia. Ask me if there's a God and I'll give you his PO Box number just to make you stop.

When someone is arguing for torture, pay attention to the form of their arguments. Do they have specific, referenceable situations where torture would have made a difference? Or are they inventing hypotheticals to create a justification for torture? More directly - is their argument *really* about national security? Or are they really looking for an excuse to torture people?

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] SarahJConnor 8 years ago

i'm ordinarily pretty desensitized but that whole episode made me intensely uneasy. i'm not sure if i'm too close to that particular subject matter or if it was just effective storytelling.

imo

[–] Mamabadger56 8 years ago

More directly - is their argument *really* about national security? Or are they really looking for an excuse to torture people?

Good question. Or even, possibly, are they not trying to justify torture specifically, but a complete lack of restriction on what they do with certain suspects?

"Moving in for the obligatory hug."

[–] SBL84 8 years ago

More directly - is their argument *really* about national security? Or are they really looking for an excuse to torture people?

I'd say it's mostly about finding someone to blame. It's not about justice, it's not about saving lives, it's simply "this person was responsible, so we did our job" even though the information is completely unreliable and they didn't actually do anything of value.

[–] gswan 8 years ago

You make excellent points. Back in 2005, when I still made attempts to use traditional blog sites, like slashdot and kur05hin, I started a thread on kur05hin about a then current story.

The Washington Post had published a story about the tortured confessions of Ibn Al Shaykh Al Libi, in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and his 2005 interrogations, to determine why his 2003 confessions proved false.

Al Libi's tortured confessions had been cited by Colin Powell, when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly, to explain that the Saddam Hussein regime (1) had a vast arsenal of WMD, ready to use against the USA and other Western states; Saddam had forged close ties with Al Qaeda, and had provided trainers to train al Qaeda recruits in how to use Iraq's WMD against the USA and other Western states.

The USA made these shocking, monumental lies; the UN believed them, and authorized the USA to invade Iraq, and search for that arsenal of WMD. By 2005 even the most extreme apologists for the war had to admit that Saddam simply had never maintained a secret arsenal, in defiance of the 1991 UN order.

So Al Libi was interrogated again. From the article it seemed to me that the 2nd set of interrogators were angry with Al Libi for having broken during his initial torture. It is likely he was tortured, again.

Well, many participants in the discussion agreed torture didn't work, or rarely worked.

Some thought torture should still be reserved for desperate ticking time bomb situations.

But the most extreme position was that all the rest of us were drawing the wrong conclusion from the torture of Al Libi. The most extreme people argued that the correct lesson was that torture could still be effective -- it just needed to be practiced on a massive, industrial scale.

These extremists argued that the interpretation of torture should rely on the techniques of market research.

Sparing you the appalling details of these torture apologists suggestions, they thought that if you captured and tortured a truly massive number of individuals, accepting that most of them were innocent, knew nothing, and were going to utter false confessions, you could still get a useful result, because the small number of individuals who actually did know something would all eventually give the same result, while all the false confessions would cancel one another out.

I thought the position of these extremists was bizarre, and alarming, and I was glad they were not in a position of power.

Since then I have learned that the position of the extremists is essentially the same as the grand US intelligence establishments "Mosaic theory".

The Mosaic theory was the justification for holding the many Guantanamo captives who innocent bystanders, who didn't themselves play any role in terrorism, when they were merely unlucky enough to have crossed paths with suspects. Even if these captives didn't think they knew anything about terrorist suspects, since they had crossed paths with them, and had been in their mileiu, it was still useful to keep interrogating them.

With regard to Al Libi, competent intelligence work would have shown he was a potential ally, as, in contrast to the claims of Bush administration haters, he was a rival to Osama bin Laden.

Al Libi ran a military training camp, in Afghanistan. But his camp wasn't an al Qaeda camp, his camp wasn't just like an al Qaeda camp. His camp was older, and more famous than the al Qaeda camps. It had been started with CIA money, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After the Societs left, and the CIA lost interest, he got new sponsors, rich Saudi princes, the same people Osama bin Laden went to to finance al Qaeda.

In 2000, Osama bin Laden tried to get the Taliban to force al Libi to swear loyalty to him, and put his famous camp under al Qaeda control. Al Libi refused. It was a brave and principled move. He risked assassination over his stand.

The reason he refused? While he too thought observant muslims should undergo military training, and observant muslims should consider traveling to volunteer in fights were being attacked by non-muslims -- like Chechnya -- he differed from Osama bin Laden over two key points. He did not believe anyone should launch an unprovoked first attack on the west.

[–] Pzachlen 8 years ago

There were WMD which is why we were refused entry when we asked to investigate. He needed time to get rid of them before we searched. Saddam admitted to his American guard, at the time, during his captivity, that he got rid of them to save face and not be accused of being bullied by America. This guard developed a civilized friendly,relationship ,playing cards ,telling jokes, etc. I can not be the only person that remembers this. It was on Dateline or 20/20.

[–] gswan 8 years ago

There were WMD which is why we were refused entry when we asked to investigate.

Bzzzt. This is completely false. By 2005 Dick Cheney was the only person who still tried to maintain that Saddam retained WMD.

What the record shows is that when he lost the 1991 Gulf War, and the UN ordered him to destroy all his WMD, he meekly rushed to comply.

Saddam admitted to his American guard, at the time, during his captivity, that he got rid of them to save face and not be accused of being bullied by America.

That is correct. Like most bullies, he was a coward, at heart. And meekly destroyed all his WMD, in 1991.

He needed time to get rid of them before we searched.

No. You drew the wrong conclusion here. Western reporters reported on mysterious trucks rushing away from facilities when they heard inspectors were arriving. But this was all play-acting, a charade.

Yes, Saddam had been lying about WMD, but not to the foreign inspectors, not to the UN. He successfully duped his neighbors and potential opposition groups, in Iraq. He wanted them to believe he had fooled the WMD inspectors, so they would continue to fear him, and they wouldn't overthrow him. But he really did destroy them. He was bluffing his local opponents.

In the first year or so after the US invaded there were a couple of incidents where overly enthusiastic reporters rushed to claim WMD had been found. But each incident turned out to contain only the tiniest grain of truth.

Nerve gas is very dangerous. Chemical weapons, nerve gas weapons, are armed by mixing two precursor chemicals. This is why they are called binary weapons. Five minute epoxy works kind of the same way.

The US, and the USSR, manufactured big cannon shells that could project a nerve gas charge a dozen kilometers, or more. Their sophisticated shells have to separate reservoirs, one for each precursor chemical. They get mixed when the shell is fired. The rifling that lines the cannon imparts enough spin to thoroughly mix the two components. When the shell arrives at the target a relatively small bursting charge blows up, and this disperses the gas.

But, as in many things, Iraqi science and technology was back at the World War 2 level. The Scud missiles were hardly any more sophisticated than the Nazi's V2 missiles. And, they lacked the ability to manufacture a reliable binary shell.

So, how did their nerve gas shells work? When the commander of an artillery battery got the order to launch a nerve gas shell, he'd say, "You, Ahmed, put on that gas-protection suit, and pour a liter of chemical number two into that shell that is full of chemical number one, then load it in the gun, and fire it. If your suit leaks, inject yourself with atropine."

In the US arsenal different kinds of shells were clearly marked, with different colored stripes. But, apparently, some resistance fighters tried to build improvised explosives devices around chemical shells, not high explosive shells.

The big joke is that, once mixed, nerve gas is highly volatile, and has a very short shelf life. It is temperature sensitive too.

Don't take my word for this. Look it up for yourself.

[–] iamvox 8 years ago

"UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program." https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

[–] Royalcourtier 8 years ago

Obviously the CIA must have tortured someone, and got a different result. Forced "confessions" are not reliable. They are about as good as using divining rods or trial by ordeal.

Why is it that the USA is the only supposedly civilised country that openly condones torture? Despite it being illegal internationally and under US law. And until recently was the only country that carried out public lynchings of criminal accused.

[–] Calimarina 8 years ago

"Why is it that the USA is the only supposedly civilised country that openly condones torture?"

American Christians and their screwed up sense of morals.

[–] Mamabadger56 8 years ago

Why is it that the USA is the only supposedly civilised country that openly condones torture?

American Christians and their screwed up sense of morals

...have a lot to answer for, but I don't think you can drop the torture thing on their doorstep. The U.S. government has managed that one on its own.

"Moving in for the obligatory hug."

[–] snagswolf 8 years ago

I enjoy how forum posters, who've never interrogated anyone in their lives, are suddenly experts on what does and doesn't work.

And I'm supposed to believe that the CIA, after decades of enhanced interrogations, suddenly discovered that enhanced interrogation techniques don't work? Sounds more like a political decision handed down from above, rather than one based upon empirical evidence.

And lastly, I'm curious how long it would take the 'experts' posting here to spill their (truthful) guts during an enhanced interrogation. I'm guessing five minutes, tops.

[–] gswan 8 years ago

I enjoy how forum posters, who've never interrogated anyone in their lives, are suddenly experts on what does and doesn't work.

In 2005 I started reading all the official documents, from Guantanamo, as the DoD was forced to release them. I ploughed through about 25,000 pages of documents, over the next four years, as they were released. So I think I can claim a bit more credibility than a mere "forum poster".

And I'm supposed to believe that the CIA, after decades of enhanced interrogations, suddenly discovered that enhanced interrogation techniques don't work? Sounds more like a political decision handed down from above, rather than one based upon empirical evidence.

You are indulging in wishful thinking. Where did you ever get the idea that the CIA had any experience with interrogation, either the legal kind, or interrogation aided by torture?

The CIA paid those two renegade psychologists $75 million dollars to develop their torture program because they had no meaningful expertise.

Sounds more like a political decision handed down from above, rather than one based upon empirical evidence.

Clarification please. Are you trying to assert that conclusions torture is an ineffective way of acquiring reliable intelligence is based on politics, not "empirical evidence".

And lastly, I'm curious how long it would take the 'experts' posting here to spill their (truthful) guts during an enhanced interrogation. I'm guessing five minutes, tops.

So, are you trying to defend the use of torture?

One key reason why US interrogators failed, is that they had no idea whether the confessions they wrung from their captive was truthful.

Consider Iraqi general Mouwshoush, who died, very painfully, while being tortured by Lewis Welshofer. Mouwshoush had been interrogated for days, without rest, interrogations that had included beating so brutal he had multiple broken ribs. Welshofer, and his CIA colleague, were frustrated, because they KNEW, that as a 2 star general, Mousshoush HAD to know some of the leaders of the Iraqi resistance, had to know the location of some of the weapon's caches they were relying on.

Donald Rumsfeld had advanced the theory US analysts were acting on, when a resistance to US occupation cropped up. That theory was that all the resistance fighters were fanatical Saddam loyalists; that Saddam had trained them, in advance, and had hidden weapons caches around the country for them to use. It never occurred to them that Iraqis started to resist a heavy-handed occupation out of simple nationalism.

So, when Mouwshough wasn't naming useful names, and wasn't stating the location of hidden weapons caches, that justified escalating the intensity of his torture.

That analysts' theory was dead wrong became evident after Saddam was taken out of the picture. According to that theory the "dead-enders" would give up after Saddam was killed. But the resistance actually intensified, because many Iraqis who bitterly resented the brutal US occupation also feared Saddam being restored to power. They feared that a resistance would trigger the US to restore Saddam to power, so he could restore order.

How did Mouwshough die. Welhofer stuffed him, head first, into a sleeping bag, and then trussed the sleeping bag up, rendering him unable to move, to induce feelings of claustrophobia. And then he knelt on his chest. A healthy man might be able to survive having a 200 pound guy kneel on his chest, but Mouwshough ribs had been broken. Trying to breath, with broken ribs, must already habe been very painful. Trying to breath with broken ribs, and a 200 pound guy kneeling on your chest must have been terrifying, and painful to an extent we can't imagine.

Mouwshough couldn't get his terror to end by simply giving up and telling the US the truth they wanted to hear, as there were no Saddam appointed resistance leaders for him to name, there were no Saddam filled secret caches for him to locate.

Was Welshofer tried, was he punished? He was tried, but his military judge was extremely deferential to the CIA representative who kept interfering. Most of the transcript is classified.

Punishment? Welshofer's punishment was much lighter than those clowns who took the Abu Ghraib photos took. Welshofer was fined, two months pay, and had two months restriction to his barracks, when off-duty. He did not serve any jail time. He did not get a dishonorable discharge, or a reduction in rank. I strongly suspect the restriction to barrack was not a meaningful punishment, as he would see all his colleagues, when he was on duty, or at the mess hall, and I imagine his buddies took turns keeping him company, in his barracks, rather than going to the Rec Hall. I strongly suspect the CIA arranged for him to receive a secret payment so he didn't suffer by having his pay docked.

Where did Welshofer come up with the idea of stuffing his prisoner headfirst into a sleeping bag, trussing it up, and then kneeling on it? His childhood. Welshofer had a sadistic older brother who used to torture him this way, when he was a child.

[–] ydobon-1 8 years ago

It's played as black comedy, but since torture and the "ticking clock scenario" were brought up, for the record I wanted to note here that torture has been debunked as a useful technique:

The problem is that it's being used to try and obtain information that can't be easily verified.

It only really works when specific, verifiable information is needed from someone, like the password to a computer. Also, the type of torture matters. Waterboard someone for a cause that they strongly believe in and they can resist for a long time. Light their genitals on fire, and they're much more likely to tell you what you want to know.

I've not saying I condone that sort of thing, just commenting on its effectiveness.

This is a THREADED message board. Please reply to the proper post!

[–] Loincloth 8 years ago

To me the solution is obvious; and I'd absolutely never advocate it. But if you wanted to be utterly ruthless and were willing to do anything to avoid the explosion or whatever in the ticking clock scenario, you wouldn't torture the person. You'd grab their kids, spouse, siblings or parents or torture them in front of them.

So vile an idea that I don't think anyone short of Isis/ the Nazis/ possibly the Kims would even consider it, but it'd probably be more effective.