Let us be clear. Torture is NOT an interrogation technique.

[Bjorn Against]

We have been hearing a great deal from the propagandists about "enhanced interrogation techniques" lately. As most of us already know that is code for torture, but what does not get challenged nearly enough is the notion that torture is an interrogation technique, much less an enhanced one.

It has long been known that torture is not effective in interrogations, when people are in severe pain or feel their life is in jeopardy they will say anything you want them to say, but that does not mean they will speak the truth. Much of the information gained through torture is bad information, and in an investigation it is worse to get bad information than no information at all, as bad information will divert your resources in the wrong direction.

It is well known within the CIA and the intelligence community that torture is not effective as an interrogation technique, so why do they insist on continuing to use it?

Because it works wonders in intimidating people. It is very effective in breaking people apart and making them fearful. It makes people see who is boss.

In other words it is a cruel and unusual form of punishment, exactly what the Constitution prohibits our government from engaging in. Torture is sadistic, it is evil, it is absolutely disgusting in every way, but it is not an interrogation technique and it certainly is not an enhancement to real interrogation methods.

We need to slam the media every time they refer to torture as an interrogation technique, because they all know damn well it is not one. When they make up false stories about some mythical terrorist who knows of some bomb planted somewhere in the US and they give us some scenario in which they may need to be tortured to get information from them, well then we need to be clear that our media is just making crap up. They can not point to a single case of the US actually gaining real intelligence through torture so they make up false scenarios of something they tell us could happen, but of course that scenario never actually does happen outside of the movies.

You are being lied to, you are being propagandized, and they are trying to shape you into a person who not only accepts cruel and unusual punishment but who embraces it. Do not fall for their lies, do not fall for their bullshit, and do everything you can to make sure no one else falls for it.

Our media and our government are currently engaged in promoting tyranny, we can not allow them to control the language of this debate. Anyone who refers to torture as an "enhanced interrogation technique" is either ignorant or sadistic, and we can not trust a thing that comes out of their mouths.

Say it loudly, torture is not an interrogation technique.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. I wish it were so simple, but the opposition is sincere

No, you don't get reliable info from torture, but if get any, it's useful.

I guess the difference to me between torture and interrogation is the motive - I've heard about Soviet intelligence after WW II and we're not doing the same thing for the same reasons.

[Bjorn Against]

2. So unreliable info is useful? how so?

There is a BIG difference between torture and interrogation, and it has nothing to do with motive. You don't waterboard people as an interrogation technique. You don't give people electric shocks as an interrogation technique. Anyone who says otherwise is sadistic.

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. Why don't you wait for an answer before insulting?

Yes, you get unreliable information, but put together with facts you know and stories from others you can piece together something that makes sense. A sadist wouldn't know when to stop, so the best evidence is that professionals handled this - not amateurs or folks out to get their jollies.

War does things to people and the CIA is not immune. I know what my father did with the Soviets after the Nazis, so please don't lecture me on who does what for what reasons. You just don't get it until you've dealt with life or death yourself.

[Bjorn Against]

30. Torture is always wrong, don't tell me otherwise.

It is sadistic to even engage in the act of torture. Someone who even begins the act of torturing someone is sadistic, it doesn't matter when they stop just act of torture is sadistic. If you find that insulting too bad, I happen to find torture a lot worse than being merely insulting.

[Fredda Weinberg]

33. And I can't avoid historical reality, however I want things to have been different

I'm glad we can disagree agreeably. I appreciate your sentiment and really, if I thought what we both want was possible I could support your position. I'm aware of different experiences that left me with a different perspective, perhaps one I can't share.

[rhett o rick]

21. The motive of torture is to terrorize and to make the torturer feel good. nm

[Fredda Weinberg]

28. You are wrong. The torturer does not get gratification. This is not S&M

Government agents have been acting lawlessly since the dawn of the modern state. Please, let us distinguish between what good citizens should not know and reality ... the CIA is not staffed by frat boys eager to relive the rush experience.

That said, officials must be held to account for what they've authorized. It is simply wrong to blame career professionals - they are not expendible campaign workers.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

35. No matter how 'sincere' the torturer, torture is fucking barbaric and ILLEGAL.

It is NOT WRONG to hold any and every person responsible for either approving or engaging in torture responsible and treating me as the barbaric criminals that they have proven themselves to be.

I refuse to give one damn inch on such intolerable and horrific actions by those who engage in them, ESPECIALLY "professionals" and "officials" who are suppose to operate by the highest STANDARDS of conduct.

[Fredda Weinberg]

36. You're diluting the issue. I'm not interested in the professionals who

were doing what they've done for generations ... whether or not we approve. The point is, someone up the chain of command did and refuses to be accountable. This is unacceptable.

[rhett o rick]

42. Sorry I disagree. For an individual to torture another human being, they must be sick. Are you

saying that they aren't sick if they are following orders? or What are you saying. If ordered to torture you must decline. If not you should be subject to punishment. Torture isn't effective, Christian or human. It is just sick. It is used to terrorize people. Bow down to us because we are tough and mean and we torture.

[patrice]

3. If the U.S. tortures, our soldiers will be tortured when they are captured.

It seems very odd to me that we never hear anyone talking about this near certainty. Our Military WILL be tortured because our government tortures. I think this fact would cause everyone to oppose torture, but it simply doesn't seem to matter ...??????????????

[Bjorn Against]

4. I would love to see all the torture supporters in our government asked the question...

Do you believe it would be acceptable for foreign nations to waterboard US prisoners? I would just love to hear their responses. Of course our media won't ask that question because they are trying to promote torture and they don't want people to think of such a scenario.

[patrice]

6. Ultimate proof of no matter how you define "Victory", it doesn't

depend upon how many die, nor how they die. "We" say we treasure them and yet they ARE completely expendable.

That's the weirdest thing about the Military. The outcome does not depend upon whether you live or die. All of us are supposed to admire that in them, and I would if we were directly under attack + I'd even want to be with them, but I can't understand what it is that they think they are doing in another sovereign nation. How does killing foreigners help them? The result of it all will be decided way the hell elsewhere, not by the military. I can only wonder if their immediate lives, no matter how "good", are essentially (as in, in essence) empty, so they go elsewhere looking for something - I don't know what. Pity the poor innocent dead Iraqis!

[EFerrari]

12. Or, ask them what they think of the torture of American citizens

by AMERICAN citizens -- John Walker Lindh.

[rhett o rick]

22. Easy for them to answer. We are good and they are bad. What we do is for good

what they do is for bad. Please feel free to substitute anyone you want for the "they".

[gulliver]

8. Do unto others...

I agree with you, and it won't be just a normalization of torture against our soldiers. Other governments will routinely torture dissidents. Bush has sullied the world. His policies are a human rights catastophe.

[Raksha]

18. It doesn't matter because the Bush mafia doesn't care about our troops

no matter what they say. "Support our troops" is just a propaganda device (and a very successful one until recently) but in reality they are nothing but pawns in the game, i.e. cannon fodder.

[Orsino]

50. ...And we will be laughed at when we try to prosecute such war crimes. n/t

[Fovea]

5. Having had a job where I routinely

inflicted intolerable pain to innocent people, I have no faith in torture as a means to discovering the truth about anything.

I have literally had someone code from pain, despite my best efforts, and what you get at that level of distress is not a rational being, or one motivated by anything but a desire to make the pain go away.

I had a guy in the ER tell me that I could keep all the money in his wallet if I would just stop moving his broken femur for a moment. Then I opened the traction pack with its hand drill and stainless steel pins...

[patrice]

7. You've either imagined that in excruciating detail or it's true.

In either case, you have a problem.

[Raksha]

15. Didn't you see the reference to "ER" in that post?

realpolitik is saying that the infliction of "excruciating pain" came from having to move broken limbs as a necessary part of the job...

[old guy]

9. This is an approach I have not seen before.

Thank you for bringing this up. I had not thought of this before in this context but it nails it! I will use this at every opportunity. Thanks again.

[patrice]

19. Please accept my apology.

I didn't stop to think what ER might be.

:blush:

[Fovea]

32. It's ok man.

I have a bit of PTSD still. Over one hundred unsucessful codes later...wrestling a cop's gun away from a pcp patient...having my eardrum burst by a 60something woman in dementia...having a coworker killed by a drug seeking patient with a shotgun a month after I left for the OR.

Hell, patient number one, first day on the job had a 2x4" sticking jauntily out of his skull.

But that is just how it is in a level 1 trauma center ER.

[K Gardner]

34. I do Level 1 ER too... hello :-)

I don't have to be at work for over 5 minutes until I'm ready for the screaming to stop. I make liberal use of the drugs I'm allowed to, which is something I'm fairly certain they don't do when they torture.

[Fovea]

37. How long you been at it?

I know folks, one triage nurse for example who's worked in the ER for 30 years.
She actually was in admin, and went back to the desk.

Some personalities deal with the stress better than others. They say the burnt out start to obsess with tight technique.
Me, I was there, day one. But there are situations where you have to be right on the first time. I knew I would have to give it up when I found myself hyperventilating when the radio went off.

Orthopedics, that was a lot more my speed, though more brutal, as I have mentioned. Ortho was both immediate in that a reduced fx feels better quickly, and long term, because you got to know patients better. Not that I didn't know some of the ER patients. One fellow I knew with Sickle Cell, very brave in the face of pain, held what I think was the indoor morphine tolerance record. He could stand in the ambulance bay holding a portable IV, smoking a cig, and talk about city politics lucidly after a loading dose of I.V. M.S. that would make you or my meat slide off the bone.

As you said-- the drugs you are allowed to. Sadly with trauma, often neuro-asessment gets in line in front of Hippocrates.

[K Gardner]

38. Twenty years, give or take a day or two. I take a breather

every few years and go on a travel assignment, do research or legal work, but I'm never truly happy unless the helicopter is landing,radio is blaring and adrenalin is pounding. I think the breaks have helped me stay in it and preserved my sanity. I know those who have persevered long after they should have quit and are quite blank, stoic, devoid of feeling and to a certain extent, their humanity. Drop me a PM, or I will you, and we'll exchange stories not suitable for public posting ! Great to meet you! :hi:

[spanone]

10. no, it's torture. only a criminal would try to redefine his crime

[EFerrari]

11. There is another element here that is important.

Our minds flinch away from the idea of torture. We reflexively avoid thinking about it because then, we'd know that pain at some level. And then, as a society, we wind up HERE -- with a government that tortures with impunity.

[Raksha]

13. K & R - You are absolutely right!

I couldn't have said better. Torture is an intimidation technique, not an interrogation technique.

[dailykoff]

14. It is if "bad information" is the objective.

Let's say the whole alqaeda-911 narrative is a load of crap. Wouldn't it be useful to have Islamic "terrorists" arrested from "terror-supporting nations" like Yemen and Afghanistan admit to every juicy detail?

Well, as far as I can tell, Gitmo and the rendition sites have absolutely no other purpose than ginning up bogus intel, other perhaps than providing sadistic pleasure to those responsible.

[EFerrari]

16. Torture is simply concrete population control.

If they were serious about al Qaida, they'd be in Northwest Pakistan right now -- where a new and improved training campus for multinational volunteers is being developed.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. You must have misspoken.

"Mistakes were made" in your post.

The next thing you're going to tell us is that "regime change" is overthrowing an elected leader, that a "surge" is a troop escalation, that "collateral damage" means killing innocent civilians, and that the "death tax" targets dead billionaires.

Come on! Didn't you read the memo? Drink the Kool-Aid?

Get with the program!

[Perry Logan]

20. If a Democratic administration were accused of waterboarding, it would DEFINITELY be called torture.

It's so weird watching the mainstream media try to let the Republicans off the hook for EVERYTHING, while Democrats get hung for the slightest rumor.

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. I'm sorry, but the situation is more complicated

The CIA started renditions in the mid-1990s under then-President Bill Clinton, with assurances from participating countries that subjects sent overseas for questioning would not be tortured. Jane Mayer explored the origins of the program in a Feb. 14, 2005, New Yorker article. She found out about two men the CIA sent to Egypt in the mid-1990s. One claimed he was tortured with electrical shocks to his genitals. Another disappeared and may have been executed.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/02/hillary/print.html

[Bucky]

23. I'll agree with your opinion, but only if you remove these electrodes from my nutsac

[rhett o rick]

24. You have to be sick to be able to torture someone. Either you're sick before or you learn it from

the act. Torture is to terrorize.

[Hydra]

25. Boiled frog

as I suspected, they've brought this out in the open to justify it and make us cheer for it.

We're getting very close to one of those "let god sort them out" moments.

[pberq]

26. well put. n/t

[KG]

31. that the torture discussion has gone public is not an accident. the real powers that be are watching

and learning just how fucked up american society is so they can gauge what they can get away with.

[K Gardner]

39. You know, maybe this question has been answered here but I don't understand

how the story about destruction of the tapes got out anyway. If you destroy evidence, isn't it somewhat counterproductive to admit you destroyed it? How would anyone have known there were even tapes in existence if no one admitted they'd destroyed them?

[CJCRANE]

41. Some DUers have suggested

it was a distraction from the NIE on Iran (and at the same time discredit the CIA/Intelligence agencies).

[EFerrari]

44. There were prisoners who saw cameras all over the place. n/t

[deacon]

40. k + r n/t

[Genanderson]

43. You're explanation doesn't really cut it I think.

The war was started for oil and corporate profits, was it not? Terrorism was just the gimmick to get us to sell it to the American people. So given that, I find it difficult to understand what possible purpose the systematic use of torture would have. On the contrary, the entire torture issue has had a very negative impact on the Bush administration, turning many against the war and contributing to our 2006 win mandating that we get the hell out of Iraq. The torture scandal has also contributed to anti-american sentiment, increasing terrorism and endangering our troops, thus harming the very oil and profits that they went in there for to begin with.

Point is, this is a big winning issue for us, so the idea that they are doing this for some infantile need to feel powerful is missing it completely. They may be evil, but stupid? I doubt it. You've already said torture is unreliable and ineffective. So if it's not politically beneficial nor militarily beneficial, we're back to the basic question: what the hell are they doing it for?

And i'm really interested to know the answer, cause it's one i've struggled with for a long time.

[mmonk]

45. Thanks for this post. Torture IS barbarism and it's purpose IS

intimidation and fear, NOT actionable intelligence. This member of Amnesty International applauds you for your OP.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. It's at least not a particularly reliable one

I don't think we should preclude the possibility that you could get reliable information from somebody using torture. Seems more likely that you will get wrong information, or as you put it, you get them to say whatever you want them to say. But I guess it's possible you could get right information. After all, anything is possible.

So yes, in a so-called ticking time bomb scenario you don't really have the option of using reliable interrogation techniques, there's a super super slim chance that torture could be used to save lives. Alright I'll support making an exception for ticking time bomb scenarios. Just remind me again when was the last time we've actually had a ticking time bomb scenario besides in television and movies?

[OzarkDem]

47. US military rejects torture because it doesn't work

They made that decision based on experience, finding any information gained is unreliable and results in wasted effort in following up bad information. They've also developed better interrogation techniques that work far better than torture.

They also know torture is harmful because it results in retribution against our own troops when they're taken captive.

[flashl]

48. The surprising force behind torture: democracies

Torture, American style

We think torture is mainly the province of dictators and juntas - the kind of thing that happens behind the iron doors of repressive regimes. In a democracy, with open courts and a free press, torture should be a relic. In the words of an American World War II poster, torture is "the method of the enemy."

But a closer look at the modern history of torture suggests that exactly the opposite is true. Torture isn't an alien force invading our democracy from the benighted realms of dictatorships. In fact, it is the democracies that have been the real innovators in 20th-century torture. Britain, France, and the United States were perfecting new forms of torture long before the CIA even existed. It might make Americans uncomfortable, but the modern repertoire of torture is mainly a democratic innovation.

So torture hasn't really disappeared in the modern age. What have disappeared are forms of torture that leave marks. The police, military investigators, and governments in democratic societies can count on the press and people watching. They know that if a prisoner can't show any marks of torture, people are far less likely to believe his or her story. So as societies have become more open, the art of torture has crept underground and evolved into the chilling new forms - often undetectable - that define torture today.

Early 20th-century America was a breeding ground for new ideas in electric torture, many documented by American Bar Association investigators in their 1931 Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement. Between 1922 and 1926, the Seattle police chief got his confessions from a cell with a wall-to-wall electrified carpet. "The prisoner leaps, screaming in agony, into the air....It is not fatal, its effects are not lasting, and it leaves no marks," remarked the ABA report. And until 1929, the police in Helena, Ark., used an improvised electrical chair to extract confessions. At the time, the sheriff testified that the chair came with other office furniture, and he had inherited it from "a long line of former county sheriffs."

If the spread of torture techniques suggests a blurry line between "us" and "them," it also teaches that there's no real boundary between "there" and "here." It would be ignoring history to assume that what happens in an American-run prison in Iraq will stay in Iraq. Soldiers who learn torture techniques abroad get jobs as police when they return, and the new developments in torture you read about today could yet be employed in a neighborhood near you.

In Chicago, in the decade after Vietnam, the use of magnetos and other clean tortures left a disaster: At least 11 men were sentenced to death and many others given long-term prison sentences based on confessions extracted by torture, and in 2003, Governor George Ryan of Illinois commuted the death sentences of all 167 death row inmates. Earlier this month the City of Chicago agreed to pay nearly $20 million to settle lawsuits filed by four former death row inmates who claimed they were tortured and wrongly convicted.

Current Chicago torture settlement:

Police torture victims deal falls apart

Last-minute legal hang-ups derailed a final vote on a $19.8 million settlement with four former Death Row inmates who alleged they were tortured by former Area 2 Police Cmdr Jon Burge and his cohorts.

The healing process that African American aldermen had been demanding will now have to wait until the new year.

“That’s how life is,” said Mayor Daley, who had hoped to put the issue behind him and his new police superintendent.

[Orsino]

49. It's also a valuable training technique..

...if what you really want is to create an army of thugs who will do literally anything you order them to do.