Torture and Terrorism

[Kilarin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02242.html
Interesting article by Matthew Alexander, a senior interrogator in Iraq. The man who led the team that tracked down al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Flocking to fight because the last ones that did were tortured or killed? I don't buy it.

[Kilarin]

Flocking to fight because the last ones that did were tortured or killed? I don't buy it

You must not be a Texan. Google "Remember The Alamo".

[Foil]

Exactly. Those practices give them a cause to fight for, fueled by outrage.

When young people see a clear evil and a cause to fight it, the historical reaction is that they quickly join. Same thing happens here, young men and women flocked into service after events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, because they saw a clear evil, and wanted to join the struggle against it.

I'm not saying they're right to join terrorist groups; I'm simply agreeing with the quote above that when we say \"the end justifies the means\" and permit ourselves to use evil methods, it only serves to strengthen the forces against us.

[Nightshade]

Foil, you don't get the point. It is all out war now. Take the \"moral\" high ground and you'll find yourself 6 feet under. You are not viewed as just and fair regardless of how you treat the enemy. The enemy only sees you as weak.

[Dakatsu]

I think we should bomb villages. I mean, possibly enemies could be hiding there, right? Wouldn't wanna be weak in front of the enemy!

[Spidey]

The terrorists also use torture, so how does that fit into the equation?

The enemy flocks to battle in support of their comrades, and lots of other factors, including the “American boots on sacred ground” factor. Not to mention it’s a WAR!

This is just more “blame America”

[Foil]

The enemy flocks to battle in support of their comrades, and lots of other factors, including the “American boots on sacred ground” factor. Not to mention it’s a WAR!

True. But I never said it was the only reason they fight, I simply said it adds fuel to the fire.

This is just more “blame America”

Not true.

Look at the author. One would think that if anyone would be touting the advantages of using torture, it would be him! After all, such tactics helped his team track down Zarqawi, right?

However, this guy (not us over here reading about it, not some journalist writing a story, but someone who was there and saw its effectiveness in person!) said that the net effect of torture is ultimately negative.

That's what tells me this isn't just anti-U.S. sentiment.

[Spidey]

I never said “you” said anything…I was responding to the OP.

[Will Robinson]

Bullcrap!
Sure if you're recruiting young jihadi's you can add the torture to the list of reasons why they should fight but to claim it is the number #1 reason is silly! The foreigners pouring into Iraq to fight started before the Americans ever took Baghdad!

Also, in that part of the world the treatment we gave them is mild compared to what they grow up expecting from an enemy. With the exception of a few ex patriot, wannabe islamofascists, softened by life in the west who then returned to fight, there was no outrage at the torture it was business as usual for them....

When the guy was told that was the #1 reason he was being told that for political reasons. The war will be over soon but the assignment of guilt and blame is a battle that will be waged for decades! He's basically repeating propaganda.

[Kilarin]

Take the "moral" high ground and you'll find yourself 6 feet under.

What's the point of winning if you turn into the enemy?

This is just more “blame America”

I never said “you” said anything…I was responding to the OP.

Ah, that would be ME then. So I shall address you points:

The terrorists also use torture, so how does that fit into the equation?

It doesn't. Because they do something evil doesn't make it right for us to do it, and doesn't really change the perspective of the jihadist on the street. Because the Nazi's rounded up and gassed Jews does NOT mean it would have been a-ok for the allies to round up and gas everyone of German decent.

The enemy flocks to battle in support of their comrades, and lots of other factors, including the “American boots on sacred ground”

Of course. As Foil pointed out, the author only says this was the biggest reason, not the only reason.

When the guy was told that was the #1 reason he was being told that for political reasons.

Again, as Foil already said, the author was the man on the ground. Not just THERE, but actually an interrogator. I can't think of ANY source that should be more informed on the issue. I'm curious as to why you think his analysis is invalid other than you don't like the conclusion.

It boils down to just a few issues:

1: Effective or not, mistreating prisoners is wrong. There is no point in defeating the enemy if you have become the enemy.

2: Over and Over again the experts have told us that Torture is NOT effective, so we are doing this for NOTHING.

3: Torture is not only not effective, it's counter productive.

Please note, this is not a bunch of namby pamby left wing journalists saying this. It's expert interrogators.

[Spidey]

Kilarin, that wasn’t my point about “they use torture“, the point is if someone else uses it regularly, why would they expect anything less from their enemys? And then it has no basis as a rallying cry. You can’t use torture, and then get all indignant about it.

And the point of winning, has nothing to do with becoming your enemy, it has to do with survival, not morality.

[Kilarin]

that wasn’t my point about “they use torture“, the point is if someone else uses it regularly, why would they expect anything less from their enemys?

Thats why I said that it made little difference to the average Jihadist on the street. People are not consistent. If their side tortures, of course it was justified and deserved, when the other side tortures, it's a terrible crime. Look at how upset we get when OUR prisoners are abused in the SLIGHTEST, regardless of how we treat the prisoners we ourselves hold.

And the point of winning, has nothing to do with becoming your enemy, it has to do with survival, not morality.

If ANYTHING is justified, so long as it leads to victory, I think we've already lost. There are, in my opinion, NO situations in which we do not need to consider the morality of our actions.

[Spidey]

I would not go so far as to say “anything” is justified, but on the other hand I feel no compulsion to play by the rules against illegal combatants.

Let them play by the rules, then I would be glad to return the favor.

[Will Robinson]

.....

When the guy was told that was the #1 reason he was being told that for political reasons.

Again, as Foil already said, the author was the man on the ground. Not just THERE, but actually an interrogator. I can't think of ANY source that should be more informed on the issue. I'm curious as to why you think his analysis is invalid other than you don't like the conclusion....

I trust he is informed as to 'what was told to him'...Being an interrogator doesn't mean he was able to extract the truth from them when harvesting that statement any more than when he, by his own assessment, was unable to harvest truthful intel from them....

It seems a little contradictory for you to use him as a source of authority on how 'you can't gather truth from them'...and yet sight his interviews of them claiming torture was their impetus for fighting as indisputable data!

Add to that the simple fact that foreign fighters were pouring across the border from Iran and Syria preparing to fight before the U.S. ever set foot across the border or captured a single prisoner and I think it is safe to say that the #1 reason they were there wasn't because they all saw the torture tactics were going to be used in some amazing shared prescient moment!

[Spidey]

Oh, and I would like to go on the record and say…that I personally do not condone the use of torture.

Just in case it was starting to look that way.

[Kilarin]

Add to that the simple fact that foreign fighters were pouring across the border from Iran and Syria preparing to fight before the U.S. ever set foot across the border or captured a single prisoner and I think it is safe to say that the #1 reason they were there wasn't because they all saw the torture tactics were going to be used in some amazing shared prescient moment!

Guantanamo Bay Detention center was established in 2002. The US invasion of Iraq began in 2003. Guantanamo Bay horror tales obviously got worse in later years, but they started off badly enough.

But still, I imagine in 2003 most foreign fighters in Iraq would NOT have listed mistreatment of prisoners as a primary reason they came over. Matthew Alexander served in Iraq in 2006. Al Queda had to KEEP recruiting new warriors for 3 years. By 2006 the primary reason for foreign soldiers being willing to enter the war was the mistreatment of prisoners. If the pictures and rumors from Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay had NOT been circulating, Al Queda would have had a harder time recruiting fighters.

This isn't counter intuitive. 911 was the recruitment tool used by the US to fire up our men and women. It's traditional and historical. If you give the enemy an atrocity, they WILL use it to increase the number of angry people fighting against you.

It seems a little contradictory for you to use him as a source of authority on how 'you can't gather truth from them...and yet sight his interviews of them claiming torture was their impetus for fighting as indisputable data!

Did you have time to read the article? Matthew Alexander was very parameters as an interrogator. The team he led was responsible for the intel that got Zarqawi:

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Matthew Alexander proved that he could get information out of the prisoners without using torture. So its not at all contradictory to say that I see no reason to doubt his statement that number one reason foreign fighters flocked to Iraq was the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, AND his analysis that torture was an inefficient, inaccurate, counter productive AND immoral way to recover intel.

I would like to go on the record and say that I personally do not condone the use of torture

Glad to hear it!

[Kilarin]

after dozens of tries I still can't edit my post.

so, let me make the correction here for those who found this phrase:

Matthew Alexander was very parameters as an interrogator.

confusing.

It was supposed to be:

Matthew Alexander was very successful as an interrogator.

I'm guessing something goofy happened with my spell checker. Or, I may have simply been posting too late in the evening. Anyway....

[Lothar]

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture....

Sneaky, sneaky....

He combined Guantanamo, where prisoners might be interrogated using harsh measures, with Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were abused for kicks, under a single label of "policy of torture". (I suppose prisoners may also be abused for kicks at Guantanamo, but that's beside the point.)

I don't think anyone has argued that Abu Ghraib style torture "keeps Americans safe". That's a strawman. Some people have argued that certain types of torture used in certain cases of interrogation keep Americans safe. That's still worth debating.

I think it's fair to say that such incidents as Abu Ghraib have harmed American interests, and I think his comments show that clearly. But he does himself and the rest of us a disservice by trying to turn it into a commentary on "torture policy".

[Kilarin]

He combined Guantanamo, where prisoners might be interrogated using harsh measures, with Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were abused for kicks, under a single label of "policy of torture". (I suppose prisoners may also be abused for kicks at Guantanamo, but that's beside the point.)

Abu Ghraib did not exist in a vacuum. It took a culture that deliberately dehumanized the enemy to inspire it, and a culture that wasn't interested in what was happening to them to let it happen.

IF Abu Ghraib had happened by itself, we MIGHT have had an easier time convincing folks it was a fluke. But it happened in a military that was already defending the use of harsh interrogation techniques. That makes it look like part of the whole. The policy we have made Abu Ghraib look much worse.

Matthew Alexanders observations that harsh interrogation techniques are ineffective and counter productive came not from Abu Ghraib, but from time doing interrogations in Iraq. Where he says our side WAS going over the line.

Some people have argued that certain types of torture used in certain cases of interrogation keep Americans safe. That's still worth debating.

What type of mistreatment/torture of prisoners do you think should be allowed?

The moral question that always bothers me is that the founding fathers of this country made it VERY clear that "cruel and unusual punishment" was not appropriate, no matter how bad the crime. If we don't torture pedophiles (who certainly deserve it if ANYONE does), how can we justify torturing terrorist suspects?

[woodchip]

Lest you forget, it was not the \"torture\" that incited the Muslim debris into a frenzy of bombing, rather the liberal press wanting to help their Democratic friends was the real culprit. Without the American papers like the NYT's, no instances of toture would of surfaced. I would bet you a dollar to a doughnut hole that if Algore would have won the election, we would never have heard about any torture. So grow up and understand where to lay the deaths of a good number of our soldiers.

[Dedman]

So are you saying that it's ok to engage in torture as long as you don't get caught?

[woodchip]

And just what were we doing in terms of torture? Waterboarding? Group sex fests? Flushing a Koran down the toilet? How does this compare to video taping Daniel Perlmans throat being slit and posting it on the internet?

[Lothar]

Abu Ghraib did not exist in a vacuum.... it happened in a military that was already defending the use of harsh interrogation techniques. That makes it look like part of the whole.

It's that manufactured connection that I most have a problem with -- with our media trumping it up the way they did in the first place. Matthew Alexander makes the same error in combining them; those who support harsh interrogation would counter just as I have. They would say that we need to use the techniques that work* but we also need to have a no-tolerance policy toward prisoner abuse in other arenas.

Matthew Alexanders observations that harsh interrogation techniques are ineffective and counter productive...

May be true, but his connecting that to Abu Ghraib hurts his argument. Look, I'm all for a good discussion as to whether harsh interrogation techniques are useful, and I think this guy has a lot to offer to such a discussion. But I think his invoking of "Abu Ghraib and..." demonstrates a lack of clarity of thought.

"cruel and unusual punishment" was not appropriate, no matter how bad the crime.

You're making the same error. Nobody (that I know of) has advocated harsh interrogation techniques as punishment for crimes, only as information-gathering tools. Nobody (that I know of) on the harsh interrogation side of things supports what happened at Abu Ghraib; they don't support the use of torture as punishment or for kicks or whatever. Only for information gathering.

Some people have argued that certain types of torture used in certain cases of interrogation keep Americans safe. That's still worth debating.

What type of mistreatment/torture of prisoners do you think should be allowed?

I'm not trying to actually defend the use of torture in interrogation as a general principle, or any specific form of it. I'm just saying, if we are to even have the discussion, we need to start by understanding the distinction between "we did something mean to a guy because we're psychopaths" and "we did something mean to a guy because we thought we could get him to reveal information."

I'm a non-expert when it comes to "what works" as interrogation techniques go. I think it's up to those who work in such a community to figure out what techniques are actually effective, and to use them as appropriate for the information they're trying to acquire and the urgency with which they're acquiring it. Don't go breaking some guy's bones for nothing, but don't hold back from a swift nutkick if the guy knows where the nuke is set to go off tomorrow morning and you know the swift nutkick technique is tremendously effective. So, again, two parts there: (1) know what's effective, and (2) use techniques according to the situation at hand.

[Will Robinson]

Lets see.....think about a people that when they saw civilian Americans die in exploding,burning buildings crumbling around them...they cheer wildly as if their team just won the Superbowl.
A people that will use torture not only as a last resort to gain a tactical advantage on the battlefield but as an offering to their God who commands the act!
A people who will use videos of their torturing infidels as a recruiters tool and pure entertainment...
A people who are totally accustomed to facing and/or using tortures much worse and much more routinely than we ever used throughout their history since time began....
A people who's customs have always been a system of dominance and submission with cruelty as the hand that puts them in their respective category.
A people who's culture and religion separate believers from non-believers with the stipulation that non-believers are less than human and can be treated as rabid dogs.

And yet those people aren't motivated to come fight the infidel who has invaded their holy land until they discover the infidel is also using torture?!?!
Complete BullCrap!

I bet if one could actually breakdown and rank the facets of their motives the fact that we too engaged in torture would be below 10% on the scale!

For the record I'm in favor of our policy as it has always been: Officially we don't do it. In reality we use it as we see the need for it the way Lothar explained it as in using what works for good reason and not for sadistic pleasure.

We don't fight wars under some variation of the Marquess of Queensberry rules and people who think we should do so are foolish and naive.
I'm glad I've never been in a war and damn sure want no part of sending someone else to fight one on my behalf and then tie his hands!

Once the decision to go kill people to get your will enforced is made then all bets are off! And please don't be so full of yourselves as to expect the warriors to take an unnecessary bullet so you can pretend your war is somehow different from the other guys!

[Will Robinson]

Here's a gut check question for you anti-toture people:
Is there any condition under which you would be in favor of the U.S. using modern day nuclear weapons?

If the answer is yes then you are in favor of resorting to a brutality and mass murder on a scale never seen before...yet you won't waterboard some jihadi because it's cruel?!?!

Get real!!!

[Kilarin]

How does this compare to video taping Daniel Perlmans throat being slit and posting it on the internet?

It doesn't. Because the enemy is still worse than you doesn't make what you are doing RIGHT. The enemy is heinous. What we have approved goes over the edge into torture, but it's mild stuff by comparison. But "Mild" torture is still torture. Brutal gang rape is certainly worse than a guy who just holds girls down and gropes them. Both are still wrong though.

we need to start by understanding the distinction between "we did something mean to a guy because we're psychopaths" and "we did something mean to a guy because we thought we could get him to reveal information."

I STILL think the abuses at Abu Ghraib are a result of the harsh interrogation policy. It set the tone. BUT, you have a valid point. The issues are connected, but not in a way that affects the "does torture work" issue.

Of course, that leads me to another problem. I don't think "Does Torture Work" necessarily has anything to do with the debate about whether it is immoral to abuse/torture prisoners.

Nobody (that I know of) has advocated harsh interrogation techniques as punishment for crimes, only as information-gathering tools.

So, would you advocate the police torturing suspected pedophiles as an information gathering technique if they think it can lead to the capture of other pedophiles? I'm serious with this question, because, again, I can't think of anyone who deserves it more. If it's moral to torture suspected terrorists for info leading to the caputre of other terrorists, it's CERTAINLY moral to torture suspected pedophiles for info leading to the capture of other pedophiles.

I'm torn here, because if I were the man on the ground at the time, I'd probably say "hook that sucker up to the batter terminals!", but this is EXACTLY the attitude that lead to lynch mobs torturing and hanging black men who they suspected of rapes in the south.

Don't go breaking some guy's bones for nothing, but don't hold back from a swift nutkick if the guy knows where the nuke is set to go off tomorrow morning and you know the swift nutkick technique is tremendously effective. So, again, two parts there: (1) know what's effective, and (2) use techniques according to the situation at hand.

Does it make a difference in the morality of the situation if you've made a mistake and have the wrong guy? We've already admitted that we used "Harsh Interrogation" techniques on people who turned out to not be terrorist. We actually shipped one guy overseas for some more serious torture on what turned out to be a mistaken tip. Police, soldiers, and spies make mistakes. So if it's ok to torture "when we really need the info", we HAVE to accept that we will occasionally torture innocent people.

And yet those people aren't motivated to come fight the infidel who has invaded their holy land until they discover the infidel is also using torture?!?!

Matthew Alexander never said it was the only reason, he said it was a primary motivator 3 years after the invasion.

I bet if one could actually breakdown and rank the facets of their motives the fact that we too engaged in torture would be below 10% on the scale!

The problem here is that Matthew Alexander is going on actual results from interrogations of foreign fighters in Iraq, which he witnessed and participated in. You are just making numbers up. Mr. Alexander might be wrong, but he's certainly more reliable than numbers you just pulled out of nowhere.

Is there any condition under which you would be in favor of the U.S. using modern day nuclear weapons? If the answer is yes then you are in favor of resorting to a brutality and mass murder on a scale never seen before...yet you won't waterboard some jihadi because it's cruel?!?!

You have a valid point. Collateral damage is an ethical issue I haven't gotten straightened out in my head yet.

[Spidey]

After reading your first response in your last post I have to point out something here…

Nobody tortures a prisoner because they think they are RIGHT, they do it because they think it’s necessary. (slight edit, removed redundant words, sorry)

I can see you are not well versed in the psychology of war, and I don’t mean that as an insult.

And anybody who does it for fun, well they should be put in prison for a long time. And I can’t see any right minded person condoning that, even if they condone torture for interrogation.

[Kilarin]

Nobody tortures a prisoner because they think they are RIGHT, they do it because they think they think it’s necessary.

True, but it means they think it is RIGHT to do something wrong when it's necessary. I don't disagree with the principle. There are times when it is right to kill. The question is, is it EVER right to torture, even if it's necessary?

[Spidey]

I can think of a senario where torture would not only be necessary, but morally justified, but do we really need to go there. (and although personally against it, would not hesitate to use it, even knowing it’s wrong)

Your still stuck that someone thinks something is RIGHT, because they have deemed it to be necessary, NO! You can do something and KNOW it’s not the right thing to do, like paying taxes.

[woodchip]

First you have to define what torture \"is\" before we can have a meaningful discussion.

[Spidey]

That’s way too simple…

Torture is the infliction of mental or physical pain or distress.

[Will Robinson]

That’s way too simple…

Torture is the infliction of mental or physical pain or distress.

You mean like exposure to prime time television programming?

Get my lawyer on the phone NOW!!!

[Duper]

That’s way too simple…

Torture is the infliction of mental or physical pain or distress.

lol you're right, that IS too simple. WE understand but from a legal view point, that's wiiiiiide open.

[woodchip]

That’s way too simple…

Torture is the infliction of mental or physical pain or distress.

Actually not so simple. War is one big act of torture. Artillery attacks, sinking of ships,roadside bombs, all cause mental and physical pain. Once a country declares war then the whole scenario is one big torture fest. The torture that the politically correct want to gasp in disgust over is far more benign than the soldier driving down a road knowing the next parked car he passes may explode. Save your sympathy for our troops and not some lice infested jihadist who is getting his first exposure to water.

[SilverFJ]

You know, it's probably not too appropriate to post the link to the videos I've seen of terrorist torture, but lemme tell you, making them do a naked cheerleader triangle doesn't come close to the ★■◆● they do to their prisoners.

[Will Robinson]

I bet if one could actually breakdown and rank the facets of their motives the fact that we too engaged in torture would be below 10% on the scale!

The problem here is that Matthew Alexander is going on actual results from interrogations of foreign fighters in Iraq, which he witnessed and participated in. You are just making numbers up. Mr. Alexander might be wrong, but he's certainly more reliable than numbers you just pulled out of nowhere.

I'm not fabricating something and portraying it as fact.
I'm using the 10% figure simply as a symbol of something small...small as in the importance a jihadi would give to infidels using torture in a war versus the importance of infidels invading the muslim land and waging war in the first place!

His "actual results" do not prove anything!
He merely believes the reason they gave in answer to his question is truthful.
I contend that they have a motive for answering the question in a way that supports their position and they have a multi generational background of believing lies told to an infidel are not lies!! They have an agenda, the war is never over...
It didn't start when the U.S. began moving troops toward the middle east and it won't be over when the troops are long gone. It started centuries ago and will be waging until the sun goes dark or there are either, only, or no, Muslims on earth.

I believe torture is merely one little thing they hold against us. I don't believe it is the straw that broke the camels back in the decision making process that brings them to the battlefield. Their history and culture give them far too many more substantial and compelling reasons to join the jihad.

It's like saying the New York Giants decided to win the Superbowl last year because the New England Patriots cheated by filming other teams practice sessions.
Sure I can find you interviews of Giants players who will site that as a motive for wanting to defeat the Patriots but I'd be silly to say that is the number one reason the Giants showed up big in the game.

The game is already inherently so much more important to them than any reaction they might have to a particular tactic their opponent might employ to defeat them. It's Coaches bulletin board material at best!

Analogous to the Iraq war, certainly a tactic used that they themselves embrace and for thousands of years have grown to expect to occur, and has in every war they ever fought by both sides they would probably be more amazed if it hadn't happened! And our unwillingness to use tactics they use would probably be played up as more evidence of the "paper tiger" reputation bin Ladin assigned to us rather than seen as something positive!
The rub is, they know the effect that answer has on our politically correct liberal media discussing our stature in the world and they aren't about to pass up a chance to twist that knife whenever a reporter/interviewer is willing to walk chest first into it!

[Spidey]

The definition of torture “is” simple, the problem is that like all things of this nature, torture can be rated in degrees.

Therefore, it’s the wrong questions that are being asked.

[woodchip]

So you are saying torture is like porn, you know it when you see it?

[Spidey]

I’m very sorry if the definition of torture is too vague for you to make your argument, perhaps it’s really a list you were asking for.