|
|
|
« Trying to Walk the Line on Torture | Main | 2004 For the Record » January 12, 2005Using Uncertainty to Our AdvantageAs much as I'd like to see some clear evidence that our government has not and will not condone the torture of captive, I can see some advantage in keeping the question up in the air regarding whether or not the government is using torture. Consider: you're a terrorist who finds himself in U.S. custody. Your training tells you that the Americans can't do anything to you, so you're not too worried. But you've heard stories in the news about how President Bush's administration has been torturing people, maybe even killing them, in order to get information out of them. Then, on the first day you're being interrogated, your questioner grabs you by the shoulders, pulls you out of your seat and forces you to stand in an uncomfortable position for hours. When he does release you, you're not permitted to sleep, and mean looking guards watch over you at all times. Now you're tired, nervous, and far less certain about the trainer who told you the Americans are too weak to use torture. And in that uncertainty springs a gap a skilled interrogator might be able to use to tease some information out of you. In order words, all this discussion could easily work to our advantage while still maintaining firm walls against torture. By keeping the notion in the press that the U.S. is rumored to be using torture against captives, we give out interrogators another weapon to use to break down their captives' resistances. The problem with this is obvious: in order to keep the terrorists guessing, we've got to keep people thinking that we might be torturing people. But as long as we're keeping the rest of the world guessing, we end up keeping the public in the dark as well, which means people (including your humble servant) will continue to wonder just what the administration is authorizing in our name. I am not suggesting that this is the strategy the administration is pursuing. Based on the Heather Mac Donald article I cited a few days ago, it appears we have become so gun-shy about torture accusations that we're not using even the most basic interrogation methods to extract information right now. This is cutting off our nose to spite our face, I think. As long as we've got to deal with all of this uncertainty, why not take advantage of it? Not to actually torture people, mind, but to let them think that we might. Anticipation, as any kid waiting for Christmas, is often far more exquisite than experience. Let's turn that to our advantage. Posted at January 12, 2005 06:41 AM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsCome on Andy, you are an intelligent person. I know we do it, you know we do it, and terrorists know we do it. It is not a matter of if we will do it, it is how far are we willing to go. To many Iraqis and people under similar regimes, torture has been the norm. I am not an advocate of mass torture or torture of most in detention, but much like my view of the death penalty, there are some who we should do whatever necessary to loosen them up. I think that we need someone in every interrogation who is either insane or can act like they are pretty well. Give them the impression that this person may snap and start eating fingers. Posted by: Scott at January 12, 2005 10:17 AM Scott, Perhaps I'm not as intelligent as you think, since I don't know that we do it. Of course, you haven't defined the 'it' you're referring to, so perhaps I do know 'it' after all. Do you mean that we break fingers and beat information out of suspects as official government policy? Because if that's the case, I don't know that, and I certainly hope that's not the case. Indeed, the entire question I've been asking over the past few days is how far we should go, and I believe that a line should be drawn at physical abuse of captives. But I see no reason why we should take advantage of what people currently believe to let our captives think we might torture them, if it will improve our ability to get information from them. Posted by: Andrew at January 12, 2005 10:30 AM Like they say on the intellectual and moving That 70's Show, "It is It." It is true that we dont' actually know that torture happens. maybe I am wrong, but I feel pretty certain that we are slapping some people around. It may not be a government sanctioned occurrence, but I find it hard to believe it doesn't happen, I think psycological torture is worse than physical, but it is also slower to produce results. Posted by: Scott at January 12, 2005 01:28 PM We have evidence that prisoners that are being abused. What we don't know is if this is policy or just lousy discipline. What we need to do is 1) improve discipline to avoid abuse and 2) decide what lengths we're willing to allow our interrogators to go to for information. I guess I've not done a very good job of laying that out in these posts. Posted by: Andrew at January 12, 2005 01:50 PM No, I think I understand your view pretty well, I just think that it happens. Much the same as I believe that we are safer when we don't know everything the President knows, I believe that we are better off when we don't know everything the military does. Even if that is for our own personal feelings only. I am not an advocate of the Bush level of secrecy though. I also find it hard to believe that it could all just be attributed to discipline. It may not be a sanctioned action, but I beleive that it is one of those plausible deniablility things. If the President isn't directly told it is happening, then he doesn't know that it is. Can't stop something you don't know is going on. Maybe I am the one not making sense. I have been rereading some of my posts and am not sure of the consistency. Posted by: Scott at January 12, 2005 02:38 PM Post a comment |
