...There is some disagreement in the intelligence community about the efficacy of torture, or even "harsh interrogation methods," but by and large most experts agree that there are better ways to go in terms of getting solid information, without giving our enemies more reasons to hate us....
I know that you're just trying to further the discussion, but let us be clear, all the experts believe that torture, or even harsh interrogations methods, are not only illegal, and immoral, but ineffective. The FBI certainly believes so and compliments to them, they have been consistent. The Military believes such and the recent memos detail their reaction to the original OLC memos. The CIA believed such until such time as the were ordered to do it, now they are in the untenable position of defending the indefensible.
We have been debating the SERE techniques, yet these folks took the unequivocal position in 2002, that putting aside the legality and the ethics, torture or even 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were ineffective.
The following is from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency ("JRPA") or the SERE School people, in 2002 trying to warn the Politicians off.
washingtonpost.com
...PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF INTERROGATION: The primary objective of interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application o of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption. (NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)
OPERATIONAL CONCERNS:
As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.
For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.
The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.
In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance, the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the interrogation process is to assess the prisoner's knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access should drive the questioning process...
The torture defenders will latch onto that last statement as their fig leaf defense, but just as a matter of mathematics, you are going to make mistakes in that assessment, and then, how do you atone for those people who were tortured, but had no operational intelligence, or those prisoners who were swept up in the collection, and were guilty of nothing at all?
We are not the Soviet NKVD, not Mao's Cultural Revolution, not some South American Junta: we are the United States of America. Unfortunately this episode proves again that men do evil, and the Leaders of Men force otherwise decent people to do evil.
But we are, at least in terms of our natural character and psyche, a nation of laws; will we enforce them? |
