Andrew Olmsted dot com: Trying to Walk the Line on Torture

« Torture: Words Have Meaning | Main | Using Uncertainty to Our Advantage »

January 11, 2005

Trying to Walk the Line on Torture

Yesterday I talked about the need not to define torture down. Now it's time to take a look at the hard question we need to answer: what are we willing to tolerate in order to gain actionable intelligence? This is no abstract debate: we are developing rules for our intelligence officers that will determine how far they are permitted to go to extract information. These decisions (OK, not made right here, but wherever they're made) will mean life and death for Coalition soldiers and Iraqis and civilians the world over being targeted by for attack by terrorists. There are two basic methods for extracting information from captives: forcing it out, and tricking it out. I believe most of us will agree that forcing it out is a no-go. Authorizing people to physically harm others damages us as individuals and as a people; I don't believe anyone could regularly inflict harm on people without serious psychological issues surfacing. And I don't believe anyone wants America to be seen as the land where torture is an approved method of extracting information regardless of the need. (Yes, I have said before that I would approve of torture in extreme situations, but I would never want to see such approval written into law. If we're in the 'ticking bomb' scenario, I expect our agents to do what is necessary to extract the information and deal with the consequences later.) Further, while skilled practitioners may be able to get good information out of captives through physical abuse, I'm not overly confident in the reliability of such information. I certainly think I'd say something were I physically abused, but I'd say whatever it took to get the pain to stop, true or not. This leaves us with tactics designed to trick information out of captives. This is no easy thing, particularly since the captives already know going in that we're not going to hurt them. They will only start talking if some uncertainty can be placed in their minds. How can we do that without crossing the line into torture? I believe that sleep deprivation is probably the best instrument for such tactics, as it will not cause any lasting damage to the captive while rather quickly placing him in a disoriented state. I'm also fine with shouting at captives, playing bad music for them, and even minor physical contact, although the last would have to be very carefully monitored to avoid abuse. Poking a captive in the chest or pulling him to his feet would be acceptable methods for raising doubts in the captive's mind, but the interrogator would need someone there to ensure the contact didn't cause injury or go beyond the prescribed limits. But I see nothing wrong with the interrogator putting the idea in the captive's mind that serious consequences might follow should cooperation be refused. The trick is creating that doubt without actually allowing those serious consequences, which I believe can only be facilitated through the use of techniques like sleep deprivation and disorientation. On the flip side, I'd like to see an end to turning terrorists over to other governments for interrogation. The fact that we're not actually performing the torture doesn't make us any less liable for it. And the fact this practice predates the Bush administration doesn't mean it's any more acceptable. I seem to recall many conservatives who point to the fact the Clinton administration used this tactic not being in favor of anything else President Clinton did. Let's all agree that we should be better than that. I understand that the above recommendations will probably please few. The restrictions on physical contact and harm as well as the refusal to turn captives over to nominally less-scrupulous governments will mean the loss of some intelligence that will save lives. On the other hand, the use of techniques designed to fool captives into giving up information will still be unpleasant for the captives, and probably will be classed as torture by some. Nor will I suggest that this is anything approaching a comprehensive look at the subject: it's just an attempt to balance our competing requirements for actionable intelligence and retaining a sense of who we are as a people. Your thoughts?

Posted at January 11, 2005 08:33 PM

Andrew Olmsted

Advertisers

Cat Medicine
Refrigerator Repair Parts
Best Price Cars
Account Money Market
Detailing Supplies

Comment policy

I apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/mt/pings.cgi/935

Comments

I think that the Andy Sipowitz method of interrogation sounds good. A few head slaps, accidental fist to the nose, and bouncing foreheads off tables.

I totally disagree with the practice of giving suspects to other countries who are more inclined to, let us say, coerce information out. Part of our problem is our association with nations who set lower standards for their actions than we try to.

Because Sadaam did it or Saudi Arabia would, doesn't justify our doing it or having someone else do it for us.

Posted by: Scott at January 12, 2005 07:43 AM

The problem, Andrew, is that brutalizing people to get information generally just does not work. You don't get good or reliable information. So, there is no kind of torture you can justify under the pretense of "gathering intelligence." Especially not from people already prepared to be martyred for their "cause."

Arguably, few if any of the "prisoners" we're holding have anything to say anyhow. Good grief, most of the men in Guantanamo have been held incommunicado for years. Any small-scale acts of "terrorism" they might have known about have long since either already taken place or have been abandoned. So there's no way we can justify ill-treating them in any way at all.

These are not prisoners who have received due process and are locked up as a result of a fair trial. Most of these men are being held because we don't have any real proof that they have or might have done anything wrong. Nothing but maybe someone's unsupported word of mouth or a coincidental similarity of name or being in the wrong place when the soldiers showed up.

I'm just saying. Before you start deciding on what kind of torture you're comfortable with, why not stop and define just who it is you're planning to torture?

Posted by: Anne at January 13, 2005 02:30 PM

Anne,

What is the evidence that torture never works? Please give me something better than your word that it doesn't.

I concur that there should be different standards for different detainees. Someone picked up in a sweep deserves far more deference than someone captured during fighting, who in turn would be more protected than someone known to be a higher-up in the AQ hierarchy.

In any case, I've said on multiple occasions that I don't want to see torture legalized under any circumstances. I do think we need to determine what we should permit in interrogations.

Posted by: Andrew at January 13, 2005 03:24 PM

The GTMO point is a valid issue, but it is peripheral to the question I'm more interested in answering. Further, what do we do with people we've captured on the battlefield? Historically, POWs are held until the war is over, but that's a rather difficult milestone to hold to in this war. But if we simply release them, how many of them are going to come back and kill more people?

These issues are not nearly as simple as we would prefer.

Posted by: Andrew at January 13, 2005 03:27 PM