Acceptable Proceedure

[Cryozombie]

What is Acceptable proceedure for interrogation? Ive listed several "methods" above, please vote for as many as you feel are appropriate and give a brief explaination why.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm not sure any of the above are acceptable by a civilized country. There are too many assumptions that have to be made to support the use of any of these tactics. If any one of those assumptions is incorrect, the interrogation method itself will do more harm to the society than benefit derived from the information.


The question is:

What if you know a detainee knows that a nuclear device is set to be detonated, what actions can you take to secure that information?

This requires a high level of confidence that the detainee possesses information about a nuclear device.

This requires a high level of confidence that you have no other way to gain the information in an appropriate time frame.

This requires a high level of confidence that by using these techniques that the detainee will give you 'correct' information.

This requires a high level of confidence that have secured the information from using these techniques you would be able to prevent the detonation of the nuclear device.


As you multiply out these confidence requirements, it becomes very unlikely that use of these techniques will result in a positive benefit. But, certainly, once these techniques are used, the society has chose to freely give away some of its liberty; the 'moral high ground'.

It is impossible to 'un-ring' a bell.

Mike

 

[Gray Phoenix]

I am not an advocate of torture for only 1 reason: It doesn’t work.



I don’t have any moral problems with torturing a person or group of people in an attempt to save someone from immediate danger. i.e., Finding out where someone’s partner is hiding a kidnap victim, or setting up a terrorist act. The fact remains that I can torture someone to the point where they will tell me anything be it true/false or correct/incorrect. Even if the tortured person gave you true and correct answers to your questions, how much trust would you actually put in the responses given? How much in the way of resources would you spend/commit to following up on however many questionable leads and to how many dead ends? Could you live with yourself after finding out you tortured an innocent person into admitting to a crime he/she did not commit?



These are the questions that need to be answered before torture can be considered.

:asian:

 

[Cryozombie]

So, how do you get info?

"Hello Mr.Detainee, What are your plans for attacking us"
"Go to hell, evil american, I will not tell you"
"Thank you detainee, you may go now"

Doesnt seem like it would work very well.

What is an acceptable alternative that will work?

 

[Lisa]

I honestly don't know how to answer this one Techno. I have read the other thread about using red paint and reading that written word made my stomach turn to be honest. That being said, until I am in that position, until it is my responsibility for the security of others and the security of my loved ones, I can not honestly answer what I think is acceptable and what I think is not. I can't honestly answer as to how far I would go. Humans do many aweful things to each other in the name of "war" and "peace" and being a bystander and reading about it afterwards does nothing to give me the true feeling of being there and having to react to the situation.

 

[Flatlander]

So, how do you get info?

"Hello Mr.Detainee, What are your plans for attacking us"
"Go to hell, evil american, I will not tell you"
"Thank you detainee, you may go now"

Doesnt seem like it would work very well.

What is an acceptable alternative that will work?

To the best of my knowledge, the only reliable way to extract information from a suspect would be the leveraging of rewards and or punishments that are acceptable with regards to the nature of the offense. I use the term acceptable because, even as a punishment, torture in any form has been classified as being unacceptable. In 1948, all UN member states ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under which article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." I believe this leaves very little room for interpretation.

In response to the original question, no form of torture is acceptable under any circumstance. I don't care how many lives are at risk. Allowing for a bending of the rules under particular circumstances opens the door for more and more bending.

 

[Cryozombie]

To the best of my knowledge, the only reliable way to extract information from a suspect would be the leveraging of rewards and or punishments that are acceptable with regards to the nature of the offense...

But that doesnt SAY anything... if the "Offense" is knowing enemy troop movements, placement etc... Do you define that then as pre-meditatve knowlage of Murder?

I mean, so what do we do? Again, it comes back to saying

"Pardon me, enemy, but could you please tell us what you know..."

What methods ARE acceptable... everyone has an answer for what ISN'T, but not even a vague notion what IS acceptable, that would also work.

We may as well just give up.

 

[Flatlander]

It seems to me to be a bit of a catch 22. A suspect cannot be found guilty of something without evidence. If there were sufficient evidence, the interrogation would be unnecessary.

Indeed, what I said does say something. Reliable information comes from a person whom you believe to be telling the truth. You would believe them to be telling the truth if you believe they were sufficiently motivated to do so. The leveraging of rewards and or punishments would provide that motivation.

For example: "If you help us, we can help you with (fill in the blank)."

"If you do not help us, we will charge you with (insert appropriate charge), which could result in (insert potential punishments)."

Why the necessity to torture for the extraction of information?

 

[kenpo tiger]

I agree with Dan.

 

[Melissa426]

To answer that question, I put myself in the position of a POW. Of course, I have never served in the military or been in prison, so take this with a grain of salt. I might break easier than I think.

Humiliation would anger me and strengthen my determination not to tell.

Sleep deprivation I am used to, but nonetheless, people do start to lose the ability to think rationally when sleep-deprived, so that might work.

Rape, beatings, electrical shock,etc ....should never be permitted.
Harming my family....should never be permitted.
Alcohol and drugs.... in appropriately monitored situations could work, but
must be used with caution

Lying to them, to weaken their defenses, OK.

"Killing them with kindness"... heck yeah. Treat me like he11 for a month then pamper me with a hot bath and chocolate and silk robes, I might tell you anything, if you promised me more. (It's why some women stay with abusive men.)

Please don't flame me, I am not a sadist. I am a realist, though. This is what I think would get me if I were a prisoner. It doesn't mean I could inflict it on anyone else. Again, I have never been in that situation.

Is this the kind of answer you are looking for , Technopunk?

 

[Cryozombie]

Is this the kind of answer you are looking for , Technopunk?

Closer yes...

Flatlander, I understand where you are coming from but the line isnt always as clear as "If there were sufficient evidence, the interrogation would be unnecessary."

If you captured an enemy officer, on the battlefield, in his uniform, there would be enough "evidence" that he is an enemy officer... now, does that mean an interrogation to discover their orders/plans is unneccessary?

I think maybe you are confusing interrigation to earn a "Confession" and and interrigation to earn "intel"?

 

[michaeledward]

So, how do you get info?

"Hello Mr.Detainee, What are your plans for attacking us"
"Go to hell, evil american, I will not tell you"
"Thank you detainee, you may go now"

Doesnt seem like it would work very well.

What is an acceptable alternative that will work?

I don't know that you can say that doesn't work very well. While I have never been an interrogator, I imagine that if you ask the same question again, and again, and again, the answer will be slightly different. Each change in the answer provides with instructions for steering the interrogation. Turn towards questions which provide useful information, turn away from questions which provide unuseful information.

These interrogations do not occur in a vacuum. You provide some information to the detainee that you know, and have validated from other sources, and you work to have the detainee's fill in the blanks.

Assuming at some point, someone gets tired of their 'Right to Remain Silent' or their 'Name, Rank and Serial Number', you begin to fill in the textures around things you already know.

But, let's take 'Mr. BadGuy' out of circulation for let's say 30 months ... how much information do you think he has that would be useful? How much has the information that he possessed, which was relevant when he was captured, is relevant as time has passed?

What effect would there be in torturing a captured Kamikaze pilot on December 8, 1941?

If the bad guy really has plans for attacking, at some point, they become useless, and keeping the detainee out of circulation is the only acceptable course of action. At this point, governments with legal systems, which can keep their nationals detained are required ... or else, we end up with indefinate detention of non-citizens in a questionably legal facility with no end.

Let's assume a combatant was captured on the battle field in Afghanistan, oh, let's say in December of 2001. How long can the United States keep this person at Guantanamo? For the sake of discussion, let's say this combatant was Iranian? Let's further say he was caught with a gun, shooting at American Special Forces?

What are the limits to his detention?

Curiously - Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

What are the limits to his detention?

Curiously - Mike

These are good questions as well...

What is the limit on this? One assumes "when the war ends" but in this case, when is that???

 

[michaeledward]

These are good questions as well...

What is the limit on this? One assumes "when the war ends" but in this case, when is that???

Yeah ... the whole torture / not torture thing offends me ... but it is a tactical issue. The Strategic question is more important.

We have lost any moral authority we might have been able to claim. Although that is nothing new, we never had it to begin with. It was just a delusion.

It may be best if we just get honest with ourselves, determine that any information we might get from Guantanamo is useless and execute these 'detainees'. We are never going to be able to let them go.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here are some interesting resources:

http://www.teamdelta.net/InterrogationResources.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation


Something that often works is to turn the prisoner away from the others by earning his trust, and then getting him to display that confidence in such a way that the other prisoners see it. Once alienated from the others, he feels a dependency upon the interrogation team and often "turns" philosophically to the side of the interrogaters. The North Vietnamese, Chinese, and Russians attempted this quite often with our pilots.

Deception if a very big part of the game. If the prisoner thinks you have the truth, and can spot a lie on his part, he'll often tell the truth. While polygraphs don't work, a suspect/terrorist may not know that and feel pressured to tell the truth once hooked up to the machine.

One great story I heard had a suspect in a police investigation sitting next to the police department's office copier. The police had a piece of paper on the copier that said in large print "HE'S LYING." They ran a wire around his arm and to the machine, asked a question, pushed the button on the copier and got the "printout." The suspect confessed.

Cops have some unique ways of getting at the truth.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

One great story I heard had a suspect in a police investigation sitting next to the police department's office copier. The police had a piece of paper on the copier that said in large print "HE'S LYING." They ran a wire around his arm and to the machine, asked a question, pushed the button on the copier and got the "printout." The suspect confessed.

I can find nothing in this technique to object to.

 

[Flatlander]

I certainly see what you're saying here, and I agree; there are definitely times when an interrogation is absolutely in order for the procurement of intelligence. I believe that it is the responsibility of people with power to use it appropriately. I believe that there are no justifications for the use of torture, irrespective of the ends. It is inhumane, barbaric, and illegal. I believe that there are other useful and more reliable interrogation techniques that have the potential to work.

Please, indulge me here. I see a ridiculous irony that quite neatly sums up my opinion.

From the President's homepage @ whitehouse.gov:

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has: expanded his violence against women and children; continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis; continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including killing more than 500 journalists and other opinion leaders in the past decade). Saddam Hussein has also harassed humanitarian aid workers; expanded his crimes against Muslims; he has withheld food from families that fail to offer their children to his regime; and he has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment.

It would seem as though the President is attempting to use Hussein's human rights abuses as a justification for the invasion. Perhaps not THE justification, but certainly A justification.

In attempting to carry out the task of securing Iraq after Hussein's removal:

1) Women and children are being hurt or killed. I understand that this is an unintentional side effect of combat operations, however, it seems that the removal of Hussein was insufficient to keep these people safe.

2) Crimes against Muslims. How would we characterize the usage of Islamic precepts to psychologically terrorize a prisoner?

3) Subjecting Iraqis to unfair imprisonment. I offer that holding anybody without charge, without indication of how long they will be held, without contact with their families, is most certainly unfair imprisonment.

We are discussing the usage of torture, as a complement to other discussions regarding what is going on in Iraq and Cuba. I am getting the impression that some people are arguing for the potential benefits of using torture to complete an operation wherein we were trying to protect people from being tortured. That is just too ironic.

But you're absolutely correct. I am not participating very well here. You don't want to hear what we shouldn't do, you want to hear about what I think we should be doing as an alternative. I have nothing to offer. I am untrained in the art of interrogation, and unable to contribute anything in that respect. My dad has been conducting successful and unsuccessful interrogations for over 25 years for the local municipal police service. He has taken a number of interrogation technique courses, and would be much more able to answer these types of questions. In none of his courses was torture offered as a potentially useful method.

I am also aware that there seems to be a feeling that there are things that "need to be known" that are so important that perhaps the rules should be bent, even if just a little. I cannot agree with that position when the ramifications are that a human must suffer unnecessarily. If it must be known, there must be another way to find out. If there is no other way, then there is no other way.

I imagine the question to be "how can we not use any method necessary if it means saving lives?" My answer would be: because we must uphold the absolute rule of law. It is not fair or consistent to insist that everybody else behave according to the laws as they are, and then ourselves bend or break them in order to enforce them. That, to me, is nonsensical and inappropriate. It is also damaging to the integrity of the entire foundation of international law. If there must be times that information cannot be acquired because we stick to our principles, we must accept that and move on. That is the price of structuring our civilization on the concept of rule of law.

 

[Sapper6]

I can find nothing in this technique to object to.

oh yes, let's use that against armies of the world we happen to come into a warlike contact with, that'll surely get 'em skeeter, the 'ole copier trick...LOL


i thought we were talking about EPWs here...? not two-bit crack dealers.

acceptable procedures...? whatever works, that's my philosophy. like i said, whatever WORKS, nothing less. but i've said a million times, torture hardly gets the desired result anyway. but on the other hand if putting an electrode on the penis of an enemy combatant helps to save American lives, just remember red is positive and black is negative :asian:

 

[digitalronin]

All of the above.

 

[Tgace]

I see Techno has addressed a question I raised in another thread (beat me to it ). I think the question revolves around what is "torture" and what isnt in your list. I dont think sleep dep, lighting, isolation etc. qualify. Others do. Perhaps the question shold be "what do you not consider torture".......