As an attorney, Phil, how would you offer proof of what someone "believes" in defending a torturer? Is there a standard equivalent to "probable cause", and how strong must that PC be? How tenuous a connection to the "threatened terrorist attack" can we accept? I read the quote to say that the more "imminent" the attack is perceived to be, the greater the license for torture. It's sort of a "007" type license to torture.

It's time that we conduct government affairs on something other than "belief" or "faith", two activities that should be reserved strictly for one's religious affairs.

There appears to me that there is a desire to be able to torture, or, worse yet, a desire to torture. Too much energy has been invested in justification of this.

Al

"CIA may honestly believe that torture (or coercive interrogation, or whatever label you choose) is necessary. They may honestly think these policies are in the national interest."

They "may?" I don't understand. So you think they enjoy it, and the endless opprobrium they have received during this debate? I mean, has it really taken you this long to realize that maybe this is not a debate between the noble crusaders of the press (who are not responsible for anyone's security) and the sadistic government officials (who will be held responsible and likely scapegoated for not doing everything possible in the event of another attack)?

"In essence, because CIA officers believe they're Jack Bauer, working hard to protect the country, they can't be guilty of torture, no matter what they do."

Baloney! This is not about the CIA interrogators. They could not get the answers that Bush wanted, so he pushed them to get tougher. They then asked for him to put it in writing. If they were Jack Bauer or any of the other Hollywood hero/torturers in 90% of the dramas on film or on TV, then they would have done the torturing and taken their chances later by throwing themselves on the mercy of the court.

The main "sadistic government officials" that DTangfield brings up are Bush and Cheney and a few of their close cronies/enablers like Yoo, Addington, etc.

To remedy this horrendous crime, let's not waste our time going after a few street corner drug users. It won't stop or change anything. Go after Mr Big and the distributors. And put a leash on Tinseltown, make Jack Bauer and his ilk x-rated with the rest of the pornography.

mike

No excuse exists for our having tortured our prisoners. It is against international law, against our own 1996 War Crimes Act, and against the higher moral law enunciated at Nuremberg by Justice Jackson. It does not produce useful intelligence, regardless of what the little liar claims. And, it puts our people in uniform at greater risk than otherwise -- an awareness prominent in our treatment of German prisoners during WWII. Bush, Cheney, Addington, Rice, Gonzales, Yoo et al should be prosecuted. I speak as a veteran.

"I mean, has it really taken you this long to realize that maybe this is not a debate between the noble crusaders of the press (who are not responsible for anyone's security) and the sadistic government officials (who will be held responsible and likely scapegoated for not doing everything possible in the event of another attack)?"

You are absolutely correct. Let's torture them all and let the Almighty sort it out. After all, if they have been captured, they must have done something wrong.

Al

Of course there is a national interest in any state-sanctioned torture regime. No one anywhere has argued that the administration implemented "harsh" interrogation techniques just to inflict suffering with no further point. It's a complete straw man argument. Does anyone honestly argue Japanese interrogators weren't trying to defend their nation when they committed war crimes on the those they interrogated? Or that Stalin created the gulags just for kicks, without any concept of national interest?

Of course they were trying to defend the nation. That doesn't make torture defensible any more than it makes it moral.

The fundamental question is whether tortune and inhumane treatment can be reconciled with any type of moral consensus we believe in our nation. This question is too important to allow an incumbent President, particularly one with the slimmest of majorities, to answer, no less a CIA GS-13. Since these people are representing our national will, this practice must, as a minimum, be a practice we all agree to.

I think that terrorists want to hurt people and I believe you are a terrorist.

Therefore to prevent another terrorist from hurting someone, I can torture you into confessing that you are a terrorist.

For your confessing to past acts will prevent someone else from future acts. QED

To Americans, who have a lot of fear, maybe this appears to be a convincing argument.

It comes down to the end justifying the means. Which is what the Inquisition said, of course, since their interest was in saving the souls of the heretics they uncovered, heaven-knows it was not in inflicting pain or even gaining information, rather only being interested in the everlasting souls of their "customers" . . . or we could go with the Checka version circa 1919 which was that "everyone's guity of something". . . "everyone is a class enemy is some way", you just have to find out which. . .

Torture is a stalking horse. I've said that many times on your old blog Phil, and I'll say it again. It ain't about gaining information, but much more about "telling me what I wish to hear" which is the essence of a police state. This coming from a person with my particular past.

Sometimes, you really do get what you wish for. . .

"No one anywhere has argued that the administration implemented "harsh" interrogation techniques just to inflict suffering with no further point. It's a complete straw man argument. Does anyone honestly argue Japanese interrogators weren't trying to defend their nation when they committed war crimes on the those they interrogated? Or that Stalin created the gulags just for kicks, without any concept of national interest?"

First of all, someone above did in fact say that the purpose was to cause harm. Second, there is a world of difference between this issue and what the Japanese and Soviets did. Taking Japanese "interrogators" is an oddly isolated case. Do you think the rape of Nanking was carried out in pursuit of "national interests?" No, the leadership has no regard for Chinese lives and pushed the soldiers to unleash their most evil instincts on a civilian populace. Second, the Stalin example. I'm sure some of the people he sent to the gulag were due to a concern for national security, but a lot of them were out of a concern for maintaining his own brutal rule. There is a difference.

I think there a few things that should be cleared up. No one to my knowledge has defended Abu Ghraib. It was a crime and a disgrace. The question now is whether CIA interrogators should be allowed to use so-called "harsh" methods on a highly limited number of high-value detainees. Now the question becomes, could the highly limited use of these methods stop an imminent attack? This is a pretty tough question, that I haven't really seen a convincing answer for. I'm sure someone will condemn me after this and probably insult me personally, but honestly if water-boarding someone like KSM stops a biological weapon attack on a US city, then I'm all for it. I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree with that statement, if they are being honest. If so, ask yourself, what if it was your family killed in the attack? Is that a worthy price to pay? It's a difficult question, as this whole issue has unquestionably sullied the US image, which has a cost as well. I guess I feel like if the use of these techniques can't be kept under control, highly limited, and only on people we know to be real terrorists, then it should not be done. But if all these conditions can be fulfilled, it might be worth the price. Some people do not seem to think terrorism poses a real threat, and if this is your belief than I understand that this whole torture issue appears horribly wrong and borderline insane. But if you wake considering the possibility of a dirty bomb going off in Washington DC, or a biological weapon being put in the nation's water supply, then it doesn't seem so insane. It instead is a challenging ethical question and a weighing of the lesser of two evils. It is certainly ripe for debate, but comparing what is happening now to the Soviet Union proves a complete ignorance of what real political oppression is.

Dhobgood -

If - a big if - you saved America - or your city - by torturing someone, then good on you. I personally doubt it would happen but if it did you would be a hero in my book. But even then I would expect you to face up to your crime and turn yourself over to the authorities and face a judge or a jury of your peers. On the other hand if you asked for a free pass up front to be immune from prosecution then I would consider you a coward and no better than the terrorists that you are apparently afraid of.

mike

Here we go, more memos and prostituted legal opinions by the Bush Administration that because they don't want to be guilty of war crimes they can immunize themselves by giving themselves a legal brief that says they can do whatever they want.

Of course, in court, it takes two side to find the truth, and ideally the judge isn't a paid employee of one of the two sides.

Since the republicans own five justices, each of whom has proven his loyalty to the party above all, the only chance we have of getting the truth is to go to the hague.

Of course, ever since we mined Nicaragua's harbors and when called on that by the Hague, have rejected that courts authority, we are outlaw before that court.

ASo WE can't go into the Hague with standing, and Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy are the paid baggage toters of the present President, so we have no court to fall back on for a fair ruling.

Because of this, should you be traveling abroad, and you get arrested, sorry about dat GI. You are on your own. There is no International Vourt that we would recognize, and no International Court that would recognize us, so whatever rancid dungeon you end up in is your problem.

Say thanks to the republican Party, IF you ever get home.

And, if you are a registerred, voting, Republican? Maybe you got the justice you deserved.

Mike...why. If I made some terrorist dude stand up for 12 hours and then he told me some info which led to saving Boston from a nuclear attack (this is hypothetical people), I'd be extremely happy that all of those people would continue to live their lives. I would not "turn myself in" and I would not care what you thought of me. And if you think doing this would make me "no better than the terrorists," then clearly your moral sense is an extremely blunt and useless instrument.

Also would like to point out, this is a perfect example of the kind of talk that poisons and debases our political discourse. "ASo WE can't go into the Hague with standing, and Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy are the paid baggage toters of the present President." This isn't an extremely horrible statement, but just a classic habit of thought that douches on both sides of the political debate use. It consists of assuming a priori that those you disagree with must be somehow corrupt tools of someone else. Its stupid. Totally fine to disagree with these people. But this way of thinking does not follow the golden rule. Do you want people on the other side to assume that your ideas are cynically motivated, or do you want them to assume that you are well-intentioned and have reasons for your views?

Well, it appears that we have conducted interrogations harsh enough for the administration to have felt it necessary to have provided immunity from prosecution. Can someone offer up the details of the imminent biological attack on Boston that was thus prevented?

We destroyed a country's infastructure and have inflicted untold suffering upon it's population to defuse "an imminent threat of WMDs", but thise WMD's didn't exist, only a blind "belief" that they existed. Shouldn't we learn a lesson about shakily launched "preventative measures" from that?

Should one not wonder when a constant theme of a government is immunity before the fast rather than accountability after the fact becomes the norm?

That this very debate is taking place in the manner in which it is should be cause for concern.

I keep reading about how it is OK to torture in a "Ticking Bomb" situation. I have some questions about such a scenario: how do we know there is a threat, who told us (a paid informant, a suspect looking for a deal, someone who has been tortured or from the people who have brought us the fabulously wrong intelligence during the past 7 1/2 years)? What other information do we have (the who else, what, where and how)? It really stretches the imagination in the real world, as opposed to the entertainment world, that only one person can give us the vital information.

I served in the US Army for 25 years and I saw torture in Vietnam and it haunts me to this day. Did we get any useful information from the incidents I saw? NO. Those being tortured, sorry those being exposed to harsh interrogation tactics, were so muddled from the pain that any thing they might say was useless.

A person subjected to torture will eventually tell you what want to hear and even more dangerously, will make up things they think you want to hear, that will cause you to use time and vital resources to track down dead ens.

DHobgood -

Is this the old 'bait-and-switch' argument? You were originally talking waterboarding but when called on it now you only want to talk about making someone stand at attention for ten hours.

If you think that a terrorist will tell you where a so-called ticking bomb is planted because of any type of physical pain you are going to inflict on him then you need to stop watching TV.

The point is that torture does not work. Do it to them and they will confess to anything you want them to say except the truth. If I did it to you, I could make you confess that you have engaged in incest and pedophilia even though it was not true (I hope). But if you were crazy enough and angry enough to murder a half million people with a nuclear explosion, then nothing I could do to you would make you give up where that nuke was or when it was going off.

I say again, if you want to do it, then go for it. Be a hollywood hero. But do not be a coward by asking for a get-out-of-jail-free card before you torture the guy. Do the deed and then stand up to whatever consequences there may or may not be. If you were correct, then maybe they will give you a medal instead of a court trial. But when it turns out you were wrong then face the music. Be a man!

mike

And Congress is doing... nothing? Not that I'm surprised, mind you. It's much more important to ensure that farmers get large subsidies in a record market year than to address fundamental issues of state-sanctioned torture. We must have priorities.

Can anyone name a single example where "Boston" was saved? No.

Torture is immoral and illegal. Mike has it exactly right, if the quoted-ad-nauseum but still pure fantasy "ticking time bomb" situation occured, then be the hero and face the consequences of breaking the law.

If I make up a scenario wherein robbing a bank could save the nation, does that really persuade anyone that robbing banks should be legal? To say that because we can devise a fantasy scenario that makes a torturer a hero that somehow justifies the fact that real people have been tortured to death in a program instigated by the government in defiance of the law is about as logical as it is moral.

If waterboarding is so effective, why doesn't the Justice Department authorise its use on domestic criminals who are actually killing Americans?

The purpose of interrogation is not always torture. And the purpose of torture is not always interrogation. Among the more Kafkaesque arguments proffered by the Bush administration for its torture regime is this: Cruel, inhuman or degrading acts are not torture if they're done with good intentions.

Take the case of the hijackers who believed they were acting with good intentions. They were men of faith who did what they thought was best for the planes. Whether they hijacked some planes or they hijacked the entire country they did what they thought was best.

Those weak New York libs thought they were smarter than the hijackers. But the hijackers' will to power was very strong.

First, everything I have read about this (coupled with the modest amount I know about intelligence gathering), the "ticking bomb" scenario is completely fictional one--very convenient for a Hollywood thriller but a ridiculous notion in reality. A previous post mentioned a couple of problems with such a scenario: how do we know of the ticking bomb?; how do we know who to ask about it?; how do we know its imminent? All of those bits of information need to be gotten from somewhere. So when does a potential threat become "imminent" to the point where the use of torture, or some other "harsh interrogation tactic" would be warranted?

And if in the incredibly unlikely event that an interrogator was confronted with a true ticking bomb scenario and the only way to prevent a biological attack on Boston was to make some suspected terrorist stand in the corner for ten hours, or worse, slap him around a bit, or waterboard him, or even really "torture" him, I would hope that he would recognize the possible cost of being wrong about it. I would hope that that interrogator would recognize that he could go to jail if it turned out that the bomb was not really ticking, or that there was no bomb, or that, god forbid, the suspect was not even a terrorist (just because we have some guy in custody does not necessarily mean that he is really a terrorist). That might give him pause before taking that step.

And if he turns out to be right, and he does save the day, do you think that any prosecutor in his right mind would actually prosecute him? There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion and if there ever were a case where such discretion should be exercised, this would be the case. No court can force a prosecutor to bring a case against anyone, because the law recognizes that prosecution is a political act.

So, I would hope that the interrogator would have the guts to go ahead and torture if he truly believed that it was the only possible way to thwart an attack, but would also recognize the gravity of what he was doing and would be ready to answer for it. He had better really believe he is doing the right thing and have the guts to stand up for his actions.

This is a multi-part response to the original post and the subsequent comments, so please bear with me...

First, allow me to address this puzzling belief that how we treat our prisoners impacts how our soldiers are treated when captured. We treat our prisoners based on an understanding of what is effective in gaining necessary intelligence. Beyond that, we treat them with the respect and dignity required by our social customs (though these vary over time and in response to given national perspectives of our enemy) and the security threat the prisoners represent. We do not treat prisoners well in the false belief that our opponents will reciprocate, though it does help after the fact to take the moral high ground when the enemy is being tried for war crimes.

The Japanese did not torture our soldiers because we tortured theirs. They did so because they did not view anyone but the Japanese to be "human." The Chinese and Koreans in particular were viewed as subhuman but so were any prisoners that were captured because surrender was considered dishonorable among the Japanese military. Although torture was claimed to have been used to gather intelligence, it also served as punishment for dishonorable behavior (surrender), as well as a means of dehumanizing the enemy (an important aspect in every nation's preparations for and execution of war).

Our current adversaries (taken as a whole) have demonstrated absolutely no regard for the fair treatment of prisoners of war. They have beheaded prisoners (including non-military members of the press) while they begged for their lives on video. They have butchered their military opponents, used them as human shields, and have mutilated and burned the bodies of those that they have captured. They were not driven to these actions because of Abu Ghraib or Gitmo but do so because they do not view their opponents as humans, as worthy of any form of treatment beyond what could have been expected during the medieval campaigns of their forefathers.

So to warn that because we have "tortured" our prisoners now opens up our soldiers to similar treatment is to ignore what is already going on. The Department of Defense is already in the conundrum of teaching survival, evasion, resistance, and escape (SERE) techniques based on an understanding of an enemy that no longer exists. The notion that a POW will be treated humanely according to certain rules and must therefore abide by those same rules is foolish and outdated and more importantly could very well lead to them being murdered on video because they allowed themselves to be captured based on those lessons.

Secondly, a JAG is never a combatant commander. At any level from the Commander-in-Chief down to the platoon sergeant level. And every JAG I have ever met will you tell the same thing, they don't decide what a commander can and cannot do, they simply advise the commander on how his actions will be perceived relative to established law/guidance/rules of engagement. It is the commander who must ultimately make the decision and to stand trial for his actions. Therefore, lawyers must be consulted to establish what will get the commander thrown in jail and what could be considered permissible given the established rules.

These documents are not about "gaining immunity" for actions that may or may not have already occurred. They are opinions about how the decision will be perceived. The commander must do the "right" thing which may or may not be the "legal" or "justified" thing. The commander has to weigh all options and in the end decide what s/he feels most comfortable with in the context of the situation. The CIA interrogators are not cowards who are looking to assurances that they will not be held accountable for their actions.

They are operators who are looking to their commanders for guidance on what tools are available to them for executing their operations. If they feel they need a tool that has not been authorized but they believe will be required to be successful in saving lives, they will very likely do the Jack Bauer thing and "beg for forgiveness later." But that's not what we are talking about here. What we are discussing here is "guidance" on what the commander believes to be the acceptable parameters for asking to use a particular technique. Because they recognize that the commander will make the decision based on what is in the nation's best interest with the inputs of his advisors and legal counsel. They know that they do not have the authority or insight to make those decisions themselves and need to know what their commander (and ultimately what their country) will deem to be acceptable tools in the prosecution of their mission.

Once this guidance has been established, it is not a free pass to waterboard any suspected terrorist. Rather, it establishes the baseline for what procedures must be followed to then ask for that particular "tool" to be brought to bear against an enemy of the United States. It is based on the understanding that interrogators in the employ of the US are not sadists but rather professional intelligence gatherers who will build their case for a particular technique upon proven information and other sources of data. This trust was violated by the Abu Ghraib scandal when non-intelligence professionals engaged in irresponsible techniques without proper guidance. These documents do not address such activities, rather they are concerned with those limited situations that require coercive techniques to be used as a compliment to other interrogation methods and intelligence gathering disciplines.

Thirdly, coercive interrogation techniques are not used against an individual based on a "belief" that this individual "might" have some "useful information." Coercive interrogation techniques are one tool among many used in conjunction with an intelligence gathering strategy. This is the part that most people fail to understand, that Hollywood regularly gets wrong, and which contradicts the "ticking time bomb" fantasy that is often used by amateurs to justify this type of interrogation. The technique is chosen not based on a "belief" but because of other indicators that point to that individual having the necessary information and the fact that this is the last available tool required to get that information.

There are two widely acknowledge interrogation techniques that work effectively. The most commonly used (because it is the most effective) is the "friendship ploy." The technique is based on gaining a person's trust over time, convincing them that their info is really not that vital to the defense of their own forces, and that the interrogators are not really the bad guys based on the treatment they have been providing. The vast majority of the average "foot soldiers" will give up information based on this tactic. Typically, this information is not of vital importance (such as specific dates, locations, and personalities involved in a future attack) but rather of database type quality. Items needed to start piecing things together. This technique has previously been used very successfully against US forces prior to extensive survival, evasion, resistance and escape training. Once our troops understood how this technique worked, it became considerably less effective. (This is key as we know that our adversaries are also providing some form of resistance training and that this is one of the interrogation tactics for which they expect and prepare.)

The second most effective technique is the "omnipotent interrogator." In this case, the interrogator is able to walk into the room and tell the prisoner key facts that the interrogator already knows. Things about the subject's unit, mission, family, and even national secrets that the prisoner may not have known. This form of interrogation is based heavily on the notion of convincing the subject that there is little sense in resisting since the interrogator already knows everything, he is just testing the subject's willingness to cooperate. Of course, the subject has no incentive to cooperate unless there is something to be gained, whether its special favors or relief from physical/psychological torment. The key to this technique is to convince the subject that their personal suffering is not worth the information that the interrogator apparently already has in their possession. Part of the effectiveness is in not letting the subject know what information has already been obtained and what information is still required.

To that end, the identity of those who have already been captured must be kept secret. If the prisoner knows who could have been the source of the information the interrogator already has, then they can guess what information is still missing. And then they can resist giving up that information. But if they don't know the source of the information, then they can't accurately assess what information to protect and what information to share. Catching them in a lie with information the interrogator already has strengthens this position and forces the subject to more quickly cease resisting as they see that they are only suffering to protect information that has already been compromised.

For the "omnipotent interrogator" technique to work, the interrogator must already have considerable amounts of information available. This information does come from other interrogations but it also comes from signals intelligence intercepts, document exploitation, human intelligence contacts, and a host of other sources. At this point, the interrogator must provide the incentive for the subject to stop resisting now that they that the interrogator already has most of the information already. That's where coercive interrogation techniques become a useful tool. And that's why the notion of "they will tell you anything to get you to stop" falls apart. Because you already have most of the information you are asking about, you are only looking for one or two key bits of information. The rest is used to baseline the subject's responses.

Many people point to Senator McCain's own account of torture to justify their "torture doesn't work" stance. The Senator has recalled a session in which he was asked to name all of the members of his fighter squadron. Any true intelligence analyst knows that this information is actually of little utility and would only serve as database fodder. The people conducting an interrogation looking for this type of information are therefore unlikely to be true intelligence professionals. In response to the torture, Senator McCain recounts giving the names of the Greenbay Packer's offensive line. This did get the torture to stop. But this is not an interrogation.

What Senator McCain was experiencing was torture. The information he gave was not important to the people torturing him (since it was of little use and could not be corroborated with previously established information). Rather, the intent of the session was to get the young pilot to understand that his captors controlled his life and could inflict pain on him at their discretion. The only thing that would save him would be his compliance. The fact that his answers were bogus were not important. The fact that he answered was important.

The reason the act of answering is important requires an understanding of US SERE training at that time. The Code of Conduct prior to and during Vietnam required that a service member answer no questions beyond the Big Four (name, rank, service number, and date of birth). What this policy failed to understand was that EVERYONE BREAKS sooner or later. Everyone will eventually give up information. Everyone has a limit.

And once an individual has broken, they are easier to break in the future. Because they already know what the out is. They know how to stop the pain. They just have to give up information. So the trick is to make it a habit. To get the person so used to giving up information after pain (or even the fear of pain) that they begin to resist less and less. This takes time but it does work on everyone. (Unless you die as in the case of Lance Sijan.)

Breaking a person is not about intelligence gathering. It is about compliance. It is about training people to do what is asked of them (regardless of how well they do it) because they have been told to. The North Vietnamese didn't need any information that Senator McCain possessed but they did need him to do things that would jeopardize the morale of other US prisoners and that could be used for international propaganda tools. This type of compliance can be coerced over time.

The US government eventually learned the lessons from these sessions and since changed the Code of Conduct, now imploring its service members to only answer the Big Four and to "evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability." And students in SERE are trained that even if they fail to protect information, to not lose faith in themselves, to immediately return to the tactics of resistance and to understand that as long as they continue to resist they are keeping the enemy engaged with them and not out in the field engaging others. They are still part of the war effort and they can still "return with honor."

So the argument, torture will only get you lies for answers fails to understand the difference between torture used to punish and/or get compliance, and interrogation which is used to confirm/deny known information while looking for very specific, actionable intelligence. You can still disagree with the technique, but at least disagree with it based on its actual usage, not on a parallel concept. What we are discussing here is neither about acquiring confessions nor about compelling a change in religious or political beliefs. It is solely concerned with those highly rare, specific incidents in which future attacks can be thwarted and innocent lives saved.

With that said, "an imminent terrorist attack" is not likely to include one about to occur in the next 24 hours but rather, refers simply to an attack that is already being planned and proceeding toward execution--imminent. It takes considerably longer to build up all of the supporting information that eventually gets you to the coercive technique than 24 hours. But when you get there, to the decision to use coercive interrogation techniques, it is because you lack that last bit of specific information that will allow you to take action (timing of the attack, the precise target, the names of the individuals involved, their communications method, etc.) To this point, you would have exhausted all other techniques in order to get the information you have, you've built a series of indicators pointing to the fact that your needed information is in the possession of a particular individual, and now you need a way to convince the individual that you have all the info you need but you want them to confirm it. The only leverage you have at this point is to get them to believe that they are suffering for no reason. But they must be suffering and that's a difficult thing to do with many people, particularly with ideological extremists.

A person can build up tolerances for discomforts (noise, light, heat/cold, stress positions). A person can learn techniques for blocking minor pain (and the body can shut out major pain). So while "less coercive" techniques will work on some people, there are others for whom these techniques will not work. What consistently works, however, is fear. Its the fear (not the pain/discomfort) that gets people to break/to give up key information. Fear is an autonomic response, one that cannot be turned off. But a person can be inoculated to it.

We regularly train our soldiers to become accustom to certain fears. And eventually the fear of dying, loud explosions, minor pains/discomforts, no longer stress them and they are able to act calmly under what others would consider highly stressful situations. This is why the "threat of violence" will only work once or in some cases a handful of times. If the threat is never backed up with the actual violence, that fear subsides.

Now that we've identified fear as the coercive element, which specific technique is chosen for use is not that important. Pulling out fingernails, striking the soles of the feet with bamboo, etc., etc are all effective not because of the pain (which can be shut out or will be eliminated naturally by the body) but because of the fear of those devices. That being the case, waterboarding meets the requirement for instilling fear as well as any of those but without the lingering physical effects. It will create the same emotional/mental trauma (which will likely last for the rest of the subject's life) but will not ALSO cripple them. So its the "most humane" of the very worst options. More importantly, interrogators don't have to waterboard someone repeatedly to get the desired information. They just need to fear the fact that they could be waterboarded, that's where the information comes from.

Lastly, the intelligence professional suffers under the curse of success. In other words, the things they do right cannot be disclosed because it would give away key sources of information, techniques, and operational capabilities. When an operation fails, it will sometimes do so publicly which is why intelligence is more often maligned then praised. This also causes the problem in not being able to justify certain techniques or requirements by citing specific examples of success. However, I would hope that my points here have illustrated that the use of coercive interrogation techniques are not "right" simply because they resulted in a success and therefore "wrong" if they failed. Rather, coercive interrogation techniques are effective tools when used in the proper intelligence gathering strategy and must be viewed solely in that light. That is the purpose of the guidance provided by the lawyers to the leadership, to ensure that regardless of the end result, the decision to use coercive interrogation was based on a clear delineation of responsibility and appropriateness. There should not be anything left to "I believe this guy is really a terrorist who knows about a ticking time bomb..." but rather "is this the correct tool for this purpose?"

BK: "However, I would hope that my points here have illustrated that the use of coercive interrogation techniques are not "right" simply because they resulted in a success and therefore "wrong" if they failed. Rather, coercive interrogation techniques are effective tools when used in the proper intelligence gathering strategy and must be viewed solely in that light. That is the purpose of the guidance provided by the lawyers to the leadership, to ensure that regardless of the end result, the decision to use coercive interrogation was based on a clear delineation of responsibility and appropriateness. There should not be anything left to "I believe this guy is really a terrorist who knows about a ticking time bomb..." but rather "is this the correct tool for this purpose?"

This is just BS. BK, I know you spent a lot of time on your post, but to me it's just a non sequitur. You either do it right, according to law and to our traditions, or you don't do it all. It's clear you're one of those "intelligence professionals" to whom you refer; sorting through all of the smoke you've thrown up, it's also clear you approve of torture.

Don't expect help from other "intelligence professionals" when the clean-up crew comes to get you after the people who've written these bizarre "legal opinions" are no longer there to help you. They'll be writing their memoirs; you'll be serving hard time.

A chilling and incredibly informative post BK, thank you very much for sharing it. I don't think I've read anything anywhere that frames the issues at hand so frankly and realistically and with such knowledge. But this bit seemed out of place in the piece as a whole:

"What we are discussing here is neither about acquiring confessions nor about compelling a change in religious or political beliefs. It is solely concerned with those highly rare, specific incidents in which future attacks can be thwarted and innocent lives saved."

Isn't this coming back to the "24" argument? That's the intention, but what are the actual events that result?

BK,
I would agree with you that whether the use of any particular "coercive technique" is morally or legally justified is based on our current social customs. However, that would make irrelevant whether the technique in question was effective in gaining the information required. It really doesn't matter whether it was used in the proper intelligence gathering strategy. If our society has determined that the particular technique is wrong and has made it against the law, then it should not be used.

But those who seek to justify the use of certain of otherwise banned techniques base their argument on the idea that there may be a case where a suspect is thought to have certain specific information of an impending attack. That begs the question of how specific is the information that the suspect is thought to have. And how imminent is the danger? How sure are we that this guy has the information?

Do the answers to these questions that make use of the technique any more in keeping with our values as a society? What is the standard and who decides whether that standard has been met?

Making a particular technique or a class of interrogation methods illegal does not necessarily mean that one who uses such a method will be prosecuted. Again, prosecutors have great discretion in whether to bring a case. However, for an interrogator to decide to use a banned method, he and his supervisors (and maybe his lawyers or the agency's lawyers) had better be pretty confident in their belief that the suspect had information that was critical to thwarting an imminent attack.

The interrogator will have made a decision to use a technique that we as a society have deemed to be contrary to our values. He had better have a damn good reason for doing so, whether or not the technique was used "in the proper intelligence gathering strategy."

Personally I think BK's right. The responsibility for their actions lies with the interrogators, but the responsibility for the techniques, social mores, context etc. etc. lies with the policy makers and political appointees, not uniquely but essentially. They are the essential ingredient.

Arguments about how others will treat US personnel, ticking time bomb scenarios, that coercion doesn't work are simply counterfactual. I find BK very persuasive on most points.

It's the big issues that are the problem, (for instance is a society that defines torture narrowly superior to a society that defines torture down, or just plain what is torture). But BK doesn't dispute that. The post is about what interrogation is in reality. It's not propaganda it's informed insight with a point of view. I'm grateful to have lucked into being able to read it.

As Seydlitz and Mike said, from a purely pragmatic p.o.v. torture does not work. Hobgood, et. al., provide the unfortunately deluded other side of the fence, and voice the New American Fascist Patriot's perspective.

Publius nails it when he suggests these criminals (torturers) will one day be called to do hard time. If we return to being a nation that does more than slap a Lynndie England in jail and call it a day, that is.

I'm with Publius. You talk like a pro, and have repeated one or two tricks of the trade but you are blowing a lot of smoke here to dazzle the uninitiated. You sound more like a Bush lawyer than an intel professional. Enjoy your jail time BK.

It is enlightening to compare BK's post with the following posts by Publius, Mike, etc. BK framed the issue effectively then presented a reasonable argument for why a highly selective use of coercive techniques, while regrettable, might be the best choice for US security. This was then followed by responses which did not even try to refute his argument, simply said it was "BS," and made bogus references to 24. BK clearly admitted that the ticking time bomb scenario is highly unlikely. He stated in clear English that waterboarding etc. is sometimes useful for existing plots. Al Qaeda frequently plans attacks for years, so I'm not sure what you all did not grasp about his argument. No one thinks waterboarding is a good thing, it obviously does not help our image, there is always the danger of abuse, and I think we can all agree that we don't want to do it. But the adults who are actually responsible for all of our security sometimes have to weigh this against the advantage gained from acquiring information about a terrorist plot. The reason this issue is difficult to discuss effectively, is that we don't have all of the information. These decisions are necessarily made on a case-by-case basis. I think there are very few who would refuse to waterboard a known terrorist to acquire information that might be essential to stopping a nuclear plot. Maybe you would, I don't know, but if so you ought to supply an argument for why Al Qaeda Joe's discomfort is a greater evil than the deaths of thousands of Americans. Surely you will say this is an absurd example, but it is a hypothetical, and I would be greatly interested in your answer. At the least it will force you to think like adults and confront the difficult ethical dilemmas under discussion. Do you think it makes you a better person that you are willing to sit here and condemn intelligence professionals for waterboarding? What does it cost you? Nothing. That is the point. You are not being forced to make the difficult decisions which are often life and death. If you want to offer a mature argument for why coercive techniques should never be used, then go ahead, but a mature argument acknowledges the inherent difficulties in either choice, it does not condemn those who disagree with you as fascists and pretend that the issue is so easy that anyone who does not "get it" like you do must be evil.

DHobgood -

I never called you or BK or anyone else here a fascist so don't try to bring up Godwin's Law. Torture is not unique to fascism, the communists used it as well.

And I did not offer an argument, mature or otherwise, that torture should never be used. I said use it all you want. But do not be a coward by begging for legal or moral absolution before you start the waterboarding, or beatings, or pulling out fingernails, or pulling teeth, or whatever else you think might break a man. Do whatever you think you need to do and then have the courage to confess and face criminal charges. Or not, maybe if you turn out to be the hero you think you are then charges won't be pressed, or maybe the judge or a jury of your peers will throw the case out of court.

Did your parents never teach you right from wrong? Call me immature all you want, but I have been taught the difference between good and evil by my parents, my preacher, my teachers & professors, by my officers and NCOs, and by my fellow veterans. What went wrong inside you that you have such a twisted view of the world and of humanity?

mike

Dear Designated HobGoblin (DHobgood):

"Do you think it makes you a better person that you are willing to sit here and condemn intelligence professionals for waterboarding?"

Since you seem to be a veteran of these exchanges on the New Intel Dump, you might not be aware that many who post here (as well as some lurkers, I suppose) are/were Interrogators, or other authorized extractors of Humanoid information. Their (my) experience, as measured in years would surely surpass the amount of years you have on this earth. So, what exactly is preventing you from submitting an extract of your bona fides on this subject? (the ethernet cloud? - fear?)

As for the intelligence professionals you speak of, there used to be a saying in the USMC which went like this "If you were accused of being a Marine, could they find enough evidence to convict you?" Same Same for Intelligence Professionals. When the CIA reacted to 9/11 and its related intelligence collection needs, I was told by a former associate that the playing field was covered by young snot nosed neophyte straight out of the Agency's schoolhouse. There was no historical repository of scholarship of these kinds of interrogations resident in the CIA, Since The FBI had extensive experience in both criminal and counterintelligence investigations and interrogations. They of course were not sufficiently pliable nor drunk with neocon Kool-Aid.

Prior to 9/11 it was widely reported that renditions tool place whereby baddies captured by US personnel were sent to foreign allied countries, where intelligence collection of the close encounter kind could be undertaken in a culturally appropriate milieu where information spat out was properly vetted, or if embarassing to the host nation, NOT. You could even play fun games like false flag seances (Google it).

Word to the wise; don't cast stones at unidentified targets without awakening at 0 dark thirty and doubling down on your Wheaties consumption. Don't hoist the intelligence professional petard less'n you are one. If you are an ANAL-yst in this metier, give me a break. you don't see me putting my feet all in your Go/No Go criteria decisions.

So DH, as a lark, do you like to swill martinis with that certain panache? Do you and your compatriots drive Lexii and above? Inquisitive minds wish to know.

PS Link provided for CI personnel enjoyment also.

"Do you think it makes you a better person that you are willing to sit here and condemn intelligence professionals for waterboarding?"

Hobgood, somehow I get the impression you wouldn't know an "intelligence professional" if you tripped over one. Ever known one? Ever done it? Ever interrogated someone? Or run a clandestine asset? Ever tried to get the truth--the real truth, not what you wanted to hear--from another human being who didn't want to give it up? If you really knew anything about this subject, you'd know that "intelligence professionals" are pretty unanimous in agreeing that torture, or, euphemistically, "coercive interrogation," isn't the panacea folks like you seem to think it is. Folks here haven't discussed the pragmatic difficulties inherent in accepting information obtained in this manner because they're aware of the very large body of literature out there. You should consult some of those sources.

Ever hear of "cover within a cover," Hobgood? If you had, you'd know that a hardened subject will protect the good stuff by giving you something that will excite you no end and send you off after false leads and otherwise chasing--or sniffing--your tail. What does this do to your "ticking bomb scenario?" Fact is, one can't wholly trust information derived through torture, nor can one be certain that one's gotten what one really needs. This is the utilitarian objection to torture.

Further, if you really want to use torture, Mike has shown you the way. Just go ahead and do it. And take the consequences. Don't ask for a free pass; nobody can give it to you. It's unlawful. You want to change the Constitution and enabling laws, well, I suggest you start writing your congress critters and lean on your state boys to get that Constitutional Convention going. But until you get those pesky laws changed, accept that you may be going to jail. Maybe right after that parade we have for your heroism, but you're still going to jail.

BTW, Mike, you're safe on Godwin's Law. It's not activated with "fascism." Only with that other magic word.

Eduardo, I really like your style. Humerous, but focused on truth. Neat.

Publius:

I like Eduardo's stye also.

Hmmm - Eduardo, El Galgo Rebelde - Where have I heard a similar callsign????

mike

Mike,

I don't know what Godwin's law is, and I never claimed you called me a fascist. Someone else did. Furthermore, I don't understand what you are talking about. The entire issue is the legality of coercive interrogation, and how it should be addressed, when it should be allowed and when prohibited. You seem to think that I'm sitting here debating what I will do at work tomorrow. I don't work at the CIA. Please stop with the "face the music" crap, it doesn't make sense in the context. And furthermore, you do not know me. If you feel content to draw conclusions about my character based on this kind of debate, then that says far more about your own character than mine.

Eduardo,
Very clever. Unfortunately, this is all ad hominem bs. I never claimed to be an intelligence professional. I am a citizen who is very interested in national security and international politics, and am doing my best to understand and make sense of the world. Do I not have a right to participate in this debate? I was not aware of this. Do not accuse me of "hoisting the intelligence petard" when I have not done so. All of my previous comments have discussed the actual issues, so far as information is available. At no point have I claimed some kind of authority on the matter (as you clearly do in an attempt to scare off those who disagree with you, ex: "Their (my) experience, as measured in years would surely surpass the amount of years you have on this earth.") I would be interested to hear of this experience and how it informs your view on the issue. But I do not want to hear you tell me I cannot participate in a debate simply because I do not have your extensive experience. Such a viewpoint suggests a shall we say unorthodox view on democracy itself. Furthermore, if you are willing to so boldly claim the mantle of hard-won experience, why do you deign to discuss the issue? Your entire post consists of a very self-consciously clever insult directed towards me, not a discussion of the issue and its complexities.

Publius-
Further confirmation of my gross impropriety in discussing this issue. Apparently since I do not have the experience and vast knowledge that you folks do (but seldom manifest) I should just keep my mouth shut. Publius, do me a favor. I feel I made a fairly reasoned argument which acknowledged the uncertainties and difficult trade-offs involved in this issue. At no point did I say "torture them danged Al Qaeda, they deserve it." At no point did I call it a "panacea" as you attest. It speaks poorly of you that you respond to a reasonable argument with such disdain and contempt. Is this how you talk to people? Do you not know many people who disagree with you? What exactly have I said that so offended you? I was under the impression we could respectful discuss issue here, but apparently not. "If you really knew anything about this subject, you'd know that "intelligence professionals" are pretty unanimous in agreeing that torture, or, euphemistically, "coercive interrogation," isn't the panacea folks like you seem to think it is." Interesting, because apparently there is an intelligence profession (BK) above who does not share this view. Shall you defame and disregard him as well? Do you think for yourself, or form all your views based on appeals to authority? Furthermore, there is no need to make this personal. I am not considering torturing anyone. We are discussing a national legal issue. Your kneejerk reactions to those who disagree with you betray an interesting intolerance. Someone who thinks that coercive interrogation might sometimes be justified is not a torturer. No more than someone who thinks social welfare is sometimes justified is a communist. You take a moderate position and caricature it in your mind so you don't have to honestly consider it. This issue is a matter of weighing principles with the public good. This is not heresy or evil thinking, it is what politics is about. Engaging in war is generally considered an evil. In considering whether to go to war, leaders do not consider whether war is good in itself, but whether the alternative is worse. The gist of my argument is that if coercive interrogation can yield valuable information that might prevent a terrorist attack, then the alternative (not engaging in it) may be worse. The constant reference to 24 and movies and implying that people who share my view are somehow "buying into" some kind of torturer-as-hero narrative is not relevant here. It does not seem likely that the coercive interrogator will be showered in praise and laurels. The idea of Americans engaging in this practice makes most of us uneasy (rightfully so). I don't really see where the glory is in this. The substance of my argument is based on unfortunate trade-offs that policymakers are forced to make. The outcome is not clear. If in time information is released which shows that this practice yielded information that was critical to stopping an attack, those in favor of allowing it will be correct. If not, then you will, and engaging in it will seem a mistake which unnecessarily tarnished America's honor. I do not think I know what will happen. You do not seem to have this modesty, which perhaps accounts for your arrogant tone. Your response is awash in contemptuous appeals to authority, but for the most part lacks reasoning. Some of your response did feature an actual argument, which seemed to be that most evidence suggests that torture doesn't work. If you look back at BK's previous post, he makes some very valid contrasts between what is traditionally known as torture and the activities that the CIA calls coercive interrogation. I suggest you look at this argument, and if you think it is wrong then say so. But stop unceasingly beating down straw man arguments and torture-boogey men.

Simply put - BK makes the best argument. He states the facts clearly and concisely and clearly has knowledge of what he speaks. Most of the other comments are emotional reactions that really don't frame their case very well at all. Eduardo plays the "salty dog" and maybe he is, but there is not much substance to his post.

This is clearly a difficult issue and I don't pretend to have the answer. One thing to keep inmind is that some of these "coercive" methods are used on our own personnel as part of SERE training.

BK,

I too very much appreciate your knowledgeable contribution to the discussion. But your exposition raises a couple of questions for me.

The central point you put forth is that there are two approaches to interrogation, the "friendship ploy" and the "omnipotent interrogator." And I haven't seen similarly knowledgeable posters attempt to refute that point.

That knowledge implies that there is at least some institutional experience in these matters, and possibly personal experience on your part as well.

If that's the case, then why is it necessary to pass these before-the-fact immunity laws now? What was the situation before? I'm certainly not saying "Go ahead and torture but I don't want to know about it." But was the previous situation a matter of an administration maintaining "plausible deniability?"

Second, if, as you say, the "omnipotent interrogator" ploy is where the torture tool comes into play, isn't that the wrong ploy to take in a situation where we've got a grab-bag of "maybe" terrorists who may or may not know something about some "maybe" plot? Where does the omnipotence come from? (And as an aside from a pedant, shouldn't it be called the "omniscient interrogator?")

To the general community, I'm curious about another thing -- torture at the street level. The dear departed (from the old Intel Dump) MSR said that Army regs now forbid all of the more "coercive techniques" and I have no reason to doubt him.

Still, we know that all armies, including our own, have commited atrocities in past wars. And since street-level intelligence is even more important in counter-insurgency warfare than in straight-up force-on-force warfare, would anyone be surprised that torture goes on at the squad level?

The guy planting an IED very probably did not obtain the materials, build the bomb, dig the hole, and press the detonator all by himself. If he's captured in the act, would anyone be surprised if soldiers -- who have lost comrades to IED attacks -- got very coercive indeed, in order to find out who makes up the rest of the IED team?

Not saying it's right -- But I'm really searching my soul about this: If I were in their shoes, would I turn a blind eye to the torture? Would I take my turn with the pliers? I wish I knew but I don't.

But I do think it's a case of what Golda Meir said to the Palestinians: "I can forgive you for killing my sons, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to kill your sons."

Cheers,

JP

Test, 1,2,3...last post did not get through

All, I have some documents that might be of interest to how we got to where we are since 2003, with the help of Rumnsnamara and some of his generals...HERE
Enjoy, it is a pdf which a) covers all official DoD Memoranda covering this subject..2) should download in your default download repository. just click bottom of browser to load (for Luddites only).

JP:

Here are the category II and III approaches talked about in the Memos, which "enhanced the original sixteen in the old official Field Manual (FM 34-52)

Technique number 18 through 26 are considered category II. Here are the list of all of them in detail.
18. Change of Scenery Up: Removing the detainee from standard interrogation setting (generally to the location more pleasant, but no worse)

19. Change of Scenery Down: Removing the detainee from standard interrogation setting and placing him in a setting that may be less comfortable; would not constitute a substantial change in environment quality.

20. Hooding: This technique is questioning the detainee with a blindfold in place. For interrogation purpose, the blindfold is not on other than during interrogation.

21. Mild Physical Contact: Lightly touching the detainee or lightly poking the detainee in a completely non-injurious manner. This also includes softly grabbing or
shoulders to get the detainee's attention or to comfort the detainee.

22. Dietary Manipulation: Changing the diet of the detainee; no intended deprivation of food or water; no adverse medical or cultural effect and without intend to deprive subject of food or water, e.g., hot rations to MREs.

23. Environment Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g., adjusting temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell). Conditions would not be such that they would injure the detainee. Detainee should be accompanied interrogator at all time.

24. Sleep Adjustment: Adjusting the sleep time of the detainee (e.g., reversing sleep cycles from night to day). This technique is NOT sleep deprivation.

25. False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from country other than the United States are interrogating him.

26. Threat of Transfer: Threatening to transfer the subject to a 3rd country that the subject would likely to fear would subject him to torture or death. (The threat would not be acted upon nor would the threat include any information beyond the naming of the receiving country.)
Technique numbers 27 to 35 are category III techniques. These techniques are being considered. But as far as I know, they are not approved. I include them because they are in the process of being evaluated and they may be approved in the future.
27. Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees while still complying with standards of treatment.

28. Use of Prolonged Interrogations: The continued used of a series of approach that extend over a long period of time (e.g., 20 hours per day per interrogation).

29. Forced Grooming: Forcing the detainee to shave hair or beard. (Force applied with the intention to avoid injury. Would not use force that would cause serious injury).

30. Prolong Standing: Lengthy standing in "normal" position (non-stress). This has been successful, but should never make detainee exhausted to the point of weakness or collapse. Not enforced by physical restraints. Not exceed 4 hours in 24 hours period.

31. Sleep Deprivation: Keeping the detainee awake for an extended period of time. (Allowing individual to rest briefly and then awakening him, repeatedly). Not to exceed four days in succession.

32. Physical Training: Requiring detainees to exercise (perform ordinary physical exercise actions) (e.g., running, jumping jacks); not to exceed 15 minutes in two hours period; not more than two cycles per 24 hours periods) Assists in generating compliance and fatiguing the detainees. No enforced compliance.

33. Face Slap/Stomach Slap: A quick glancing slap to the fleshy part of thecheek or the stomach. They are only effective if used once or twice together. After the second time on detainee, it will loose the shock effect. Limited to two slaps per application; no more than two application per interrogation.

34. Removal of Clothing: Potential removal of all clothing; removal to be done by military police if not agreed by subject. Creating a feeling of helplessness and dependence. This technique must be monitored to ensure the environmental conditions are such that this technique does not injure the detainee.

35. Increasing Anxiety by Use of Aversion: Introducing factors that of themselves create anxiety but do not create terror or mental trauma (e.g., simple presence of dogs without directly threatening action). This technique requires the commander to develop specific and detailed safeguards to insure detainee's safety.

Here is what is at the heart of the Interrogation process (Jack Bauers of the Internets..take note!) this from the new FM dated 2006.

DEVELOPING RAPPORT
8-9. The basis of rapport is source confidence in the HUMINT collector, which leads to a willingness to cooperate. Rapport does not necessarily mean a friendly relationship, although that may be the case. It means an establishment of a relationship in which the HUMINT collector presents a realistic persona designed to evoke cooperation from the source. The source responds with relevant, truthful information. Rapport is established during the approach and must be maintained throughout the questioning of the source. If the HUMINT collector has established good rapport initially andthen abandons the effort, the source would rightfully begin to question the HUMINT collector's sincerity and may cease answering questions.

BUILDING RAPPORT
8-10. Building rapport is an integral part of the approach phase. The establishment of rapport begins when the HUMINT collector first encounters the source. Depending on the situation, the HUMINT collector may introduce himself to the source. In debriefing and liaison operations, this will normally be the collector's true name and affiliation. In elicitation, the requirement and type of introduction depends on the operation. In interrogation operations, the HUMINT collector normally will not introduce himself unless he is laying the groundwork for an approach. If he does introduce himself,normally he will adopt a duty position and rank supportive of the approach strategy selected during the planning and preparation phase. The HUMINT collector must select a rank and duty position that is believable based on the HUMINT collector's age, appearance, and experience. A HUMINT collector may, according to international law, use ruses of war to build rapport with interrogation sources, and this may include posing or "passing himself off" as someone other than a military interrogator. However, the collector must not pose as--

A doctor, medic, or any other type of medical personnel.

Any member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or its affiliates. Such a ruse is a violation of US treaty obligations.

A chaplain or clergyman.

A journalist.

A member of the US Congress.

Note: from me...Rapport need not be positive and friendly, but needs to be constant and reinforcing.

"I am not considering torturing anyone. We are discussing a national legal issue.

So DHobgood, let me get this straight. You yourself do not want to dirty your hands with torture. But you are OK with someone else doing it in your name, and in my name, and in the names of every American??

Torture is counterproductive. It creates more enemies, so any benefits that you imagine BK might get from coercively interrogating someone are overtaken by more recruits to the torture victim's cause.

Torture victims, or 'coercive-interrogation' victims if you insist, are likely to say whatever they think their interrogators want to hear, making it one of the poorest methods of gathering reliable information. Anyone can say anything when being tortured because it is human nature to want it to end which makes the results questionable and the value of torture useless.

Torture or enhanced interrogation does not break everyone as BK claims. There are hundreds of examples. Think of the Christian martyrs, branded or faced with death by fire or by lions if they did not recant - or by the Communist gulag just a few decades ago. Resistance to torture is directly related to the belief system of the victim. The jihadis are undoubtedly evil, brainwashed criminals but they are no more apt to break under torture than our heroes.

One of the clearest examples of torture not working resides in the library of the CIA itself. Read this link on "Limits to Interrogation" by Merle Pribenow, a CIA ops officer. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no1/article06.html#author1>

Look at the several hundred cases that we know of about prison inmates who confessed to horrible crimes after beatings or sleep deprivation and later these convictions were overturned due to DNA or other incontrovertible evidence.

The United States of America has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. Surgeon First Lieutenant Seitaro Hata (a doctor), was convicted and sentenced to 25 years hard labor. Yukio Asana, then a civilian serving as an interpreter with the Armed Forces of Japan and Takeo Kita, Sergeant Major got 15 years. Genji Mineno, a civilian employee of the Japanese Imperial Army got 20 years. Their victims were Morris O. Killough, Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash, Munroe Dave Woodall, John Henry Burton, and George De Witt Stoddard, American Prisoners of War, all members of our greatest generation. Lieutenant Hata, Asana, Sergeant Major Kita, and Mineno thought themselves patriots defending their homeland.

If you want to now change the subject from waterboarding to other 'coercive or enhanced interrogation' techniques then consider the cases of Hiroyuki Morita and Sergeant Masatoshi Sawamura. Morita was convicted and sentenced to 15 years hard labor for "causing a POW to stand for a long period of time with their hand extended above their heads or w/o adequate clothing in winter weather". The Judge Advocate did reduce his sentence by 2 years for some acts of consideration and kindness performed by the accused in other instances. Sergeant Sawamura was convicted and sentenced to 30 years hard labor for, among other things, "forcing PW to stand at attention for a long period of time, sometimes in cold weather without sufficient clothing and on one occasion using mock death threats by raising and lowering a sword on a PWs neck in an effort to make him give information."

Torture or as you call it, coercive interrogation, is wrong, both morally and ethically.

Why would you want to condemn your grandchildren and mine to be shamed and hated by the rest of the world???

Here is a site called Scribd where the new FM downloads before your very eyes. You can find the 16 authorized approaches inside. The Agency can do what it bloody well wants, since they do their stuff overseas (or at least are directed to by charter). Link is
HERE

Mike, calm down, put the WWII book down, and get off your pedestal. No one is saying these things are right. They obviously aren't.

"The guy planting an IED very probably did not obtain the materials, build the bomb, dig the hole, and press the detonator all by himself. If he's captured in the act, would anyone be surprised if soldiers -- who have lost comrades to IED attacks -- got very coercive indeed, in order to find out who makes up the rest of the IED team?

Not saying it's right -- But I'm really searching my soul about this: If I were in their shoes, would I turn a blind eye to the torture? Would I take my turn with the pliers? I wish I knew but I don't."

This quote from a previous poster is remarkable for its honesty. We all know that torture is wrong Mike, but unfortunately it is a little more complex than that. What if your family member were killed in a terrorist attack? What if it came out that coercive interrogation of Al Hamed or whatever might have yielded critical info? How would you feel then? Is this a hypothetical? Yes. Is it likely? Probably not. But we are dealing with uncertainty, and one of the few things we do know for sure is that there are people out there who are trying to kill American civilians and are killing American soldiers.

"Why would you want to condemn your grandchildren and mine to be shamed and hated by the rest of the world???"

Except for the US, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, and a few smaller countries, torture is a regular occurrence in most of the world and is practiced or at the very least overlooked by governments. I doubt that an Egyptian will sincerely hate us because he has heard that we coercively interrogated 25 people when he knows for a fact that thousands are rotting in Egyptian prisons for political crimes and being tortured daily. He may hate us, but it will be for different reasons. The issue of interrogation is important, but if you think that the CIA waterboarding a few people is a really serious case of human rights abuse then you are very unaware of what has always and continues to go on in the world. It is primarily a symbolic issue and one of principle, and it is to our credit that it causes this much discussion.

Mike,

In all sincerity, I must confess I do not understand why you would provide the link that you did. I'll admit that I'm reading the document with my own preconceived beliefs (as noted in my previous post) but it doesn't seem to support your thesis of "[o]ne of the clearest examples of torture not working."

I see that the author, Mr. Pribbenow, states: "Without doubt, the South Vietnamese torture gave Tai the incentive for the limited cooperation he gave to his American interrogators, but it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided." However, by my reading of this article, his statement is without support.

Again, I may be misreading the article, but as I see it, Tai himself wrote in his own memoirs:

- he knew his resistance was beginning to crack

- During a short respite between torture sessions, to avoid giving away the secrets he held in his head during the physical and psycho-logical breakdown *he could feel coming*, Tai tried to kill himself by slashing his wrists.

- Tai would engage in a dialogue, something he could not trust himself to do when being tortured by the South Vietnamese out of fear that his weakened condition and confused mental state *might cause him to slip and inadvertently reveal some vital secret*.

- He would play for time, trying to remain in American custody as long as possible in order to keep himself out of the hands of the South Vietnamese, *whom he believed would either break him or kill him.*

To me, these confessions of a man looking back on the events well after the fact seem to indicate that it was the torture that the South Vietnamese perpetuated that represented a greater risk to his ability to keep his cover than what ploys the Americans attempted without resorting to torture.

Furthermore, this case points back to the tactics of the "omnipotent interrogator" (omnipotent vs. omniscient because the interrogator not only knows everything but also because they completely control the subject's life) by highlighting the fact that Tai was finally convinced to reveal information because:

"Exhausted and weakened, both physically and psychologically, and comforting himself with the thought that, whether he confessed or not, the enemy clearly already knew his real identity, he finally gave in."

This is precisely the result I indicated would happen in my earlier post. Coercion alone will not get you answers. You have to have substantial evidence indicating that this individual has the information you need to know and a means by which to judge their answers. Tai appears to have been an extremely difficult subject, anticipating the methods to be used, understanding what information had already been compromised, and ideologically committed. But throughout the article, references to his memoir suggest that even he was on the verge of breaking. It wasn't that the techniques failed but that they were not given sufficient time to be successful (which again contradicts the "ticking time bomb" scenario).

For clarification purposes, based on what is discussed in this article, I would have viewed coercive techniques to be the wrong tool for the job. The intelligence gained consisted of little more than a confession, which is not the point of my previous post. Coercive techniques may be the appropriate tool for obtaining information on a future attack in order to save lives but should not be used for historical data.

With regards to martyrs (Christian or otherwise) dying for their beliefs rather than give up information, I already addressed that with my reference to Sijan. A willingness to die rather than break is the only exception to the rule. Otherwise, an interrogator with the proper techniques and baseline information will break anyone.

These points were all addressed in my previous post along with the point that social standards change over time. Subjecting prisoners to extreme cold (short of physical damage) is considered by many to be an acceptable technique now. Prosecuting the Japanese for it in the past does not necessarily translate to the same aversion in the present.

My original post was never intended to sway a person's belief system one way or another. This is an incredibly emotional topic and there is very little middle ground. So what you believe is what you believe and I would be foolish to think I could change anyone's mind one way or the other. My only intent was to clarify three misconceptions:

1. How we treat our prisoners has nothing to do with how our prisoners are treated.
2. The administrations lawyers are not looking for immunity or absolution in the given laws but to provide an interpretation of the given laws in the form of advice to decision makers. The decision makers (specifically the President) must still weigh this interpretation against what they believe needs to be done and what is in the nation's best interest.
3. Coercive interrogation techniques, when used in conjunction with other information gathered through other means can be effective.

Lastly, allow me to clarify, I am neither an employee of the CIA nor an interrogator.

DHobgood: "Mike, calm down"
I am calm Mr Hobgood. You seem to be the one hyperventilating about hypotheticals.

DHobgood: as quoted from a previous poster JP - "Would I take my turn with the pliers? I wish I knew but I don't."
Thank you for being honest JP. I do not condemn you for that answer. I think 90 to 95% of Americans would have your same reaction but you and they and even Mr Hobgood would do the right thing despite their initial doubts.

DHobgood: We all know that torture is wrong Mike, but unfortunately it is a little more complex than that. What if your family member were killed in a terrorist attack?
I do not claim to be on a pedestal, I have said here that I would save my family, my neighbors, my town, my country by any means possible. If I believed you were going to blow up Boston, or Atlanta, or Crawford Texas and I could stop the plot by torture using pliers, or a power drill, or waterboarding on you then I would not hesitate. That does not mean that it should be legal. I or you or anyone else who uses such methods should be open to public judgement. You know this subconsciously as even you say that: "No one is saying these things are right. They obviously aren't."

DHobgood: "...if you think that the CIA waterboarding a few people is a really serious case of human rights abuse then you are very unaware of what has always and continues to go on in the world."
Don't put words in my mouth, Mr Hobgood. I said no such thing and did not imply it. What I have been saying, perhaps badly because you still don't get it, is that torture or coercive interrogation is illegal and should never be made legal as you have suggested. And I do not particularly care about your strawman Egyptian that you bring up. If you make torture legal and do not somehow try to bring torturers to justice then you will be hated not only by him but by Europeans, Japanese, and South Koreans that you mention. It will also give the Russians and Chinese Communists another weapon in their propaganda a that they can use to gain power in the world at our expense.

DHobgood: "...it is to our credit that it causes this much discussion.
I beg to differ. I am deeply ashamed of you and the other few Americans who would even consider making torture or 'coercive interrogation' legal.

DHobgood,

I would agree that the use of "coercive techniques" is very complicated. It is not at all cut and dry. First there is the possibility that there are intelligence collectors out there that think that because of what is at stake--they might have a reasonable belief that every bit of information may prevent another 9/11--they are justified in pushing the envelope. I have not been in the position of having had to interrogate a suspected terrorist. However, I can imagine that if one is not getting information from one and you truly feel that the information the suspect has could prevent future attacks, you might want to try everything possible to get that information.

I am not saying this is right, but it doesn't necessarily make the interrogator a bad guy.

And this thought also leads to the unfortunate admission that those in the Bush administration who advocate giving interrogators the ability to use "coercive techniques" are not actually evil. They are just stupid and shortsighted. Even though they are motivated by what they see as their mission to prevent future attacks, they do not see the infinitely more substantial downside of such a policy: diminished standing in the eyes of the world, diminished moral authority in international discussions regarding human rights, easier recruiting for terrorists, etc.

The second complication is where the line is drawn when defining what techniques constitute "torture." I, for one, think it is clear that waterboarding is torture. I also think that most Americans also hold this view. But is a couple of slaps across the face during an interrogation session torture? I am not sure. Is making the room very hot or very cold torture? How about limiting the source's sleep to four hours a day? Heck, you get less than that in ranger school. It isn't as though there is some bright line rule that separates interrogation techniques into those that are torture and those that aren't.

But I think one way to address these uncertainties is to use the law to define what we consider to be unacceptable. That becomes the baseline. That is how the law works. But the law also allows for mitigating factors to be considered. So if an interrogator uses a technique that we, the people, have determined to be unacceptable by passing a law against it, then the interrogator should be subject to prosecution for it.

But that is not the end of the story. The prosecutor has the discretion as to whether or not to actually prosecute. And even if he does prosecute, the interrogator can raise all kinds of defenses and mitigating factors if he is tried for it. And finally, the jury also has a vote.

This whole process forces the interrogator to weigh the benefits of using some unacceptable method--the value of the information in preventing an attack--against the possibility of being prosecuted for it. He would have to consider what defenses he could raise. It sounds like a very grave situation, but if he is considering using such a technique, then it had better be very grave.

At the same time, I have great sympathy for the "street-level interrogation" scenario. Emotions do run high when bullets are flying and IEDs are going off. But soldiers are supposed to be disciplined enough to do what they are supposed to no matter the situation. So it is up to the leader to instill in his troops what is acceptable and what isn't. If soldiers in that situation are ready to use pliers on the suspect, then that is a leadership problem. A soldier is only going to do that if he believes that his leaders will tolerate it.

And finally, the United States is in a unique position in the world. Regardless of how many countries tolerate torture, we are held to a higher standard. And we are because we have held ourselves to a higher standard before the world. We have invoked a certain moral authority when dealing with other countries with regard to human rights. So the fact that the CIA has waterboarded a few people is a huge blow to our image and seriously harms any moral authority we have had.

BK,

What is disturbing about the so-called "legal opinions" that were issued by Yoo and others is that they were NOT crafted to give the decision makers unvarnished, unbiased legal advice. The opinions were in fact designed to give a legal justification for torture. Almost every other lawyer who has commented on them, to include Yoo's replacement as the head of DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, has called them poorly reasoned and not even close to being accurate analyses of the law. As far as what has been reported, the opinions were given after the policy had already been decided upon.

Maybe the legal opinions were not designed to give the interrogators cover (though the one most recently released explicitly discusses defenses that can be raised by someone brought up on charges, so one has to question that), they certainly seem to be a justification for a policy already decided upon rather than one factor to be considered by a decisionmaker before actually deciding.

BK: "Lastly, allow me to clarify, I am neither an employee of the CIA nor an interrogator."

Well we all knew that, or almost all as a few here actually thought you were speaking from personal experience. I figured you for a lawyer. Reference my 11:15 post from yesterday. Not that there is anything wrong with lawyers, there are good ones and bad ones like the rest of the population.

BK: "My only intent was to clarify three misconceptions:"

Let me go over these one by one.

BK: "1. How we treat our prisoners has nothing to do with how our prisoners are treated."

This is only partially true BK. For this current war on terror you are correct. It does not matter if we give all the terrorists we have captured tea and crumpets and treat them like royalty, our men if they are kidnapped by terrorists will be tortured or beheaded. But if you think we will never fight another war after this one then you are shortsighted. It does not matter if the next war is with a civilized nation or group of nations or with more uncivilized religious zealots like al Quaeda. The world has a long memory. Our troops who are taken prisoner in those future wars will pay in pain and blood if we use torture or 'coercive interrogation' in this war. Those future torture victims will be our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. This is why the great majority of US Army and Marine Corps senior officers are against 'coercive interrogation' and pushed for approval by Congress that only the non-coercive techniques in the interrogation FM could be used by the military, and why the President caved to their demands and restricted the coercive techniques to the CIA.

BK: "2. The administrations lawyers are not looking for immunity or absolution in the given laws but to provide an interpretation of the given laws in the form of advice to decision makers. The decision makers (specifically the President) must still weigh this interpretation against what they believe needs to be done and what is in the nation's best interest."

Bad advice was given and bad decisions were made. It is not in the nation's best interest to become a pariah state and to antagonize potential allies in the war against al Quaeda. And the lawyers should know better. You do not defeat organized crime by torturing Mafiosi - you defeat it by going undercover or by getting low-level wiseguys to roll over on their bosses. The secret service of the Shah of Iran (Savak??) did not serve the best interests of Iran by torturing dissidents - they only created more dissidents and lost the country. The torture by the Grand Inquisitors of the 15th thru 17th centuries did not stop the reformation, it encouraged it to grow. Regardless of the fictional movie, the French military and security services lost Algeria even though they used torture. There are hundreds of other historical precedents that prove that torture or 'coercive interrogation' is not in the best interest of the group that uses it. But I can count on the fingers of one hand those events in history that prove the reverse. And in those cases torture only worked for short term benefits and did not work for the long haul.

BK: "3. Coercive interrogation techniques, when used in conjunction with other information gathered through other means can be effective."

Conversely, non-coercive interrogation techniques, when used in conjunction with other information gathered through other means can also be effective. It is called the "we know all" technique and it has been used successfully for hundreds if not thousands of years without torture.

BK: "...social standards change over time. Subjecting prisoners to extreme cold (short of physical damage) is considered by many to be an acceptable technique now. Prosecuting the Japanese for it in the past does not necessarily translate to the same aversion in the present."

Maybe you are not a lawyer. Social standards and aversions may change, but that has nothing to do with the law until you can get legislation passed to change the law.

BK: "A willingness to die rather than break is the only exception to the rule. Otherwise, an interrogator with the proper techniques and baseline information will break anyone."

Again, BK that is only partially true. Are you saying that McCain and most of his brother POWs in the Hanoi Hilton were broken? They may have given the Viets a few propaganda coups, but even then they sabotaged those televised confessions with finger gestures. The way to keep from being broken and giving up vital information is fourfold. First if captured resist interrogation as long as possible. Next if subjected to torture which can no longer be resisted then lie to the interrogator on that specific question. Third if the interrogator is one of your so-called omnipotent ones who catches you in a lie and resumes the torture, then give him the answer he wants and to which he already knows or thinks he knows the answer to. Fourth, go back to step one resistance and repeat as many times as you possibly can. Sooner or later the interrogator will ask you a question which he does not know the answer to. Then you have got him and broken him as he is now reporting bogus info into his organization. Even if eventually over time he finds out that you lied and he comes back, you start all over again. And if eventually after many such cycles you tell all, by that time any information you had is now rendered almost useless to the enemy. The value of information is time dependent. This technique is known to and taught by many militaries but is basically common sense and has been used successfully by many torture victims who were not tutored in its use.

And finally BK, regarding your 12-paragraph claim that torture worked on Nguyen Tai, the man in the snow white cell: He did not break as you define it. You yourself admit he gave up only very limited information, a confession of his identity which his interrogators already knew by other means. He used time well to shift to a fallback story (what Publius above calls a "cover within a cover"). He only pretended to give in when his torturer "forced" him to make an admission. He expertly played on the interrogator's ego by making him think that he had "cracked" and to divert attention from the secrets that he was successful in protecting (i.e. the location of his headquarters and the identity of his communist contacts). While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's confession of his true identity, it did not provide any usable information. The torture played the key role in cracking Tai's cover story, but so what. He gave them nothing they could act on and that they did not already know. He used counter-interrogation as an offensive weapon against his torturers. He was held in their custody for years and they got no useful information from him. It was their investigation and analysis that put the pieces together to make a solid and incontrovertible identification of Tai, not their use of torture. And then they could do nothing with that info.

One miinor comment on Mike's response to BK: In fact even in the law, shifting social standards are important, especially when what you are talking about is something not easily defined like "torture." Often, terms like that are not expressly defined by statute so it is up to the courts to determine whether particular conduct is or is not covered under the term. One of the main factors a court will consider is what is socially acceptable.

Again, it's a line drawing problem. Except in extreme cases, there is no easily discernible harm that would distinguish a technique as torture and a technique that is not. Making a suspect stand in the cold or heat; depriving him of sleep; exposing him to annoying music; making him stand for four hours; slapping him in the face...which of these techniques is torture? Does a law have to ban specific techniques or does it just provide criteria to judge whether a technique is appropriate in order to be effective? That is why, even if there is a law, it is likely that the definition of torture is going to be, at least in part, subject to social standards.

mike, thanks for the vote of confidence on whether I'd make the right decision. I hope you're confidence is justified.

Just to clarify a couple of things, while I expressed sympathy for those in that s