« It's The Nationalism, Stupid | Main | Hillary Clinton on Health Care »
October 07, 2007
The Chessboard And The Waterboard
The article about the old WWII interrogators is making the rounds:
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
I'm sure the information the World War II men got was of much higher quality. If you try to extract hard-to-verify information from someone who is, at the moment, burning with hatred at you for torturing or humiliating them, they're almost certainly going to lie. That's part of the reason torture is rarely used by people who are genuinely interested in acquiring new information. (It's more often used by people like witch hunters and Communists trying to set up show trials, who know exactly what they want to hear, and don't care whether their victims are lying.) But if you work hard, over an extended period, at setting up the kinds of situations in which social bonds develop between human beings, you'll get information that actually has some value.
October 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Since this has been common knowledge for centuries, the logical conclusion is that the torture was not for the purpose of extracting useful information.
A purpose of the torture could have been to generate false information that could be used to expand the war or otherwise justify questionable operations.
Or maybe that punk George Bush just got off...on torture. There is some evidence for that thesis.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 7, 2007 6:27:55 PM
Here's another piece of common knowledge that needs re-emerge from hibernation: Tortue does terrible things to the people being tortured AND the people doing the torturing. It's in the interest of our own people not to torture our enemies. No person should be asked or ordered to do that kind of work. It screws people up for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 6:36:59 PM
I have to imagine that it's a lot harder to recruit good people for jobs as torturers too.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 7, 2007 6:40:51 PM
If you try to extract hard-to-verify information from someone who is, at the moment, burning with hatred at you for torturing or humiliating them, they're almost certainly going to lie. That's part of the reason torture is rarely used by people who are genuinely interested in acquiring new information.
Right. But if the information is easy to verify, as in the location of a ticking time bomb, torture becomes a whole lot more valuable as a method of interrogation.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 6:42:00 PM
The ticking time bomb situation always comes up, maybe for good reason. As McCain and others have said, the torture debate is about national policy, not what might have to happen to prevent an imminent disaster. In almost every situation, torture is ineffective and mutually destructive. It can't be a standard way for the United States to acquire elusive information.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 6:48:08 PM
Tortue does terrible things to the people being tortured AND the people doing the torturing.
In many cases, probably. But then so do lots of other acts that are much more common in modern warfare, like dropping bombs on towns and cities with civilian populations. And even just ordinary infantry fighting. Did you see Ken Burns' new documentary about WWII, The War? American GIs returning from combat were found to be suffering from (what is now referred to as) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other serious mental problems, at huge rates. War is hell. Torture is hell. That doesn't mean they aren't sometimes necessary.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 6:49:22 PM
Of course, part of the thing about torture is even if the person being tortured doesn't hate you, they'll still tell you what they think you want to hear in order that you stop torturing them. And what they think you want to hear may very well be different from the truth. Especially considering that we don't likely even know whether half the people we're torturing down in Gitmo even know anything about anything (otherwise, we could be handling them using standard tools of the criminal justice system anyway) -- and who's gonna say under "we'll stop this torture if you'll tell us about X", "I don't know"?
The yahoos who come up with these torturing policies should maybe watch less 24 and more Marathon Man.
Posted by: DAS | Oct 7, 2007 6:57:20 PM
"War is hell. Torture is hell. That doesn't mean they aren't sometimes necessary."
True enough, but the hellacious nature war should not prevent combat from occurring within a framework of rules. Should we chuck the Geneva Convention because war is hell? Or ignore any distinctions between combatants and non-combatants because some non-combatants always die in wars? In order to stave off the rise of utter barbarity, people must attempt to restrain the ferocity of war, as hard as that it is to do. Preventing torture from becoming a standard part of interrogation seems like a good place to start.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 6:57:44 PM
The ticking time bomb situation always comes up, maybe for good reason. As McCain and others have said, the torture debate is about national policy, not what might have to happen to prevent an imminent disaster.
Why doesn't national policy include policy regarding what should be done if we are faced with an imminent disaster? Including torture in national policy doesn't mean endorsing its use as a "standard" or common method of interrogation. The policy could restrict its use to very rare circumstances of the ticking time bomb variety. We have a national policy regarding all sorts of circumstances that we expect to be very rare, if they ever happen at all, from a nuclear attack to the assassination of a president.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 6:58:49 PM
Veal,
I'm not suggesting that the use of torture should not also be governed by a framework of rules. Of course it should be. I'm arguing against the position that torture should never be used at all, that there should be an absolute ban on torture regardless of circumstances.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 7:04:23 PM
I guess I could live with that stipulation under the expectation that the people in charge of implementing the policy actually would adhere to it and make torture a 1-in-a-million event. Given the tendency to panic and--given the nature of our current administration--I'm hesitant to support any kind of loopholes in this regard. But, generally speaking, I see your point.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 7:08:12 PM
I don't see why a "loophole" that allowed the use of torture under very restricted circumstances should be considered a greater risk than the "loopholes" that allow a president or congress to order a nuclear strike, or an invasion of another country, or something of that sort. An unjustified nuclear attack or war is likely to produce a lot more needless suffering than even a large number of unjustified acts of torture. Many Americans think the Iraq war is grossly unjustified, for example, but I doubt many of them would support an absolute ban on declarations of war by the United States.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 7:32:59 PM
I already conceded that a nation might allow torture under the most dangerous of all circumstances. I make that concession with some apprehension because I fear its abuse. I fear the abuse of warmaking powers too. That said, I think your Iraq analogy goes off the rails in this regard. The war was sanctioned through proper channels. Bush asked for permission, and he got it. Due to the current Military Commissions Act, Bush gets to sanction interrogation techniques that seem like torture to me without going to Congress. He gets to define the problem away because the MCA, as approved by Congress, gave him too much leeway in noting what is and is not torture; hence, the current rhetorical dancing in Washington and the call to revisit the issue by people like McCain.
In the end, the "ticking timebomb" situation is a rhetorical rabbit hole that, in my experience, always produces convoluted logical parsing that obscures the fact that torture, in almost every circumstance imaginable, is ineffective, counterproductive, and wrong.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 7:54:25 PM
In the ticking time-bomb scenario you break the law and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.
If there actually was a bomb, and your actions saved the day, no jury would convict, no prosecutor would seek an indictment.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Oct 7, 2007 7:56:19 PM
Tortue does terrible things to the people being tortured AND the people doing the torturing.In many cases, probably. But then so do lots of other acts that are much more common in modern warfare, like dropping bombs on towns and cities with civilian populations.
The difference is that torture is personal, intensely focused on the suffering of an individual and concerned with enhancing that suffering. And it seems that humans, sadly enough, develop a taste for inflicting pain once they've become inured to it... these are the people who wil be coming back here, marrying people we know, having kids, getting drunk occasionally, and so on. If you really want to talk about ticking time bombs, there's where we're likely to find quite a few, even if it's not quite as big a rush as pretending that "24" is real.
Posted by: latts | Oct 7, 2007 8:13:47 PM
Unreal veal,
That said, I think your Iraq analogy goes off the rails in this regard. The war was sanctioned through proper channels. Bush asked for permission, and he got it. Due to the current Military Commissions Act, Bush gets to sanction interrogation techniques that seem like torture to me without going to Congress.
Fine. Then let's change the law to require congressional authorization before torture is legally permitted. I'm not sure I agree that such authorization should be required in all cases, but at least you seem to agree with me that an absolute ban on torture is not justified.
In the end, the "ticking timebomb" situation is a rhetorical rabbit hole that, in my experience, always produces convoluted logical parsing that obscures the fact that torture, in almost every circumstance imaginable, is ineffective, counterproductive, and wrong.
I agree that torture is not justified as punishment, or to extract a confession, or as a standard method of interrogation. But I think torture is justified in a small class of cases of the "ticking time bomb" variety. Just how large that class is, I think is difficult to define. I don't think the logic of using torture in these cases is remotely "convoluted." It's pretty clear and straightforward.
I should also say that I think even an absolute ban on torture for the purpose of punishment is not as clear as many proponents of such a ban would like to believe. Many people consider life imprisonment to be a form of mental torture. Or being held on death row for years, waiting to be put to death. Or being confined in an institution (prison) where you are knowingly at constant risk of rape or serious assault. It is at least arguable that a number of features of our existing criminal justice system amount to mental or psychological torture, which further muddies the black-and-white picture that anti-torture absolutists like to paint.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 8:17:40 PM
It's important to remind people that torture is not actually about obtaining information. That might be the cover story, but torture tends to crop up in situations where a government is trying to cow an resisting population into submission.
Torture is not about information. Repeat, it's about scaring people so they won't resist your tyranny.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Oct 7, 2007 8:28:10 PM
Jason R,
You're fun to debate. I don't think Congressional approval for torture should be required, because I think torture should only be used in cases when there is no time for that i.e. a ticking time bomb. In this regard, I think Davis X. Machina lays out the proper course of action.
With respect to torture being used as punishment, the kind of torture to which I'm referring is not the abstract brand of long-term imprisonment, which I admit might be worse than death in the opinions of some. I'm talking about torture as latts does above: the type that is "personal, intensely focused on the suffering of an individual and concerned with enhancing that suffering." That just can't happen for the reasons I've laid out before. It produces lies, and it damages everyone involved.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 8:31:18 PM
What does our government want from Jose Padilla? Nothing. They already admitted he's done nothing and knows even less.
Why did they torture him until he lost his mind?
So that American citizens know that they are not immune and dissent can bring the penalty that is worse than death.
Why are we torturing children in prisons in Iraq? Why are we rounding up people randomly and torturing them though we know they know nothing and will give up nothing of value?
So that people in Iraq know the Americans are merciless animals and that you better walk with your head down and your mouth shut if you don't want to be killed, too.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Oct 7, 2007 8:36:32 PM
latts,
The difference is that torture is personal, intensely focused on the suffering of an individual and concerned with enhancing that suffering.
Infantry combat is often also intensely personal and focused on inflicting death and injury on other human beings, often at close range. The horrific nature of such combat has been described by numerous veterans, and the high rate of mental disorders among returning soldiers is clear evidence of the profound psychological harm it often causes.
Furthermore, it also seems to be true that while many people are seriously harmed psychologically by the experience of harming others, many other people are able to compartmentalize it or put it aside and seem to suffer no serious adverse effects on their own mental health. Again, I am reminded of some of the interviews in The War, in which WWII veterans described themselves, or the men they were fighting alongside, inflicting horrific, and in some cases gratuitous, injuries on enemy soldiers (many of whom were just teenagers). One interviewee described worrying that he had become insensitive to suffering and death from being around, and participating in, all the carnage of close combat, but that when he returned home he found that he was as shocked and appalled by acts of violence as he had been before his combat experience.
So, sorry, but this "torturing other people screws you up" thing is just irrelevant.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 8:36:35 PM
What made warfare in the Pacific so horrible is that the accepted guidelines for warfare totally broke down. Japan's Bushido code and emphasis on imperial sacrifice caused them to dump the Geneva Conventions even before Americans began fighting them. When the armies clashed, barbarity led to barbarity.
Although warfare in Europe was surely horrific between Americans and Germans, it never devolved in the way it did in the Pacific, because each side continued (for the most part) to adhere to accepted rules of battlefield conduct. This was not the case between Soviets and Germans, as Germans defined Slavs as untermenschen not worthy of restraint. Again: the result was barbarization and ridiculous barbarity.
One might reasonably argue, then, (as many historians have done) that institutionalized restraints are not irrelevant. They are the bulwark against the type of dehumanizing violence that leads to murder, rape, and all other forms of atrocity. If the Ken Burns had provided some kind of editorial voice to his documentary, this type of understanding might have emerged. He didn't, so it didn't.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 8:45:05 PM
I'm talking about torture as latts does above: the type that is "personal, intensely focused on the suffering of an individual and concerned with enhancing that suffering." That just can't happen for the reasons I've laid out before. It produces lies, and it damages everyone involved.
Well, it doesn't necessarily produce lies, as you yourself have agreed. Sometimes, it may produce the truth. That's the only way of justifying its use in "ticking time bomb" scenarios.
And, of course, it could also be argued that life imprisonment, and the death penalty, and a penal system that exposes prisoners to serious risk of rape or assault, damage everyone involved. My point is that the line distinguishing torture from "legitimate" methods of interrogation or punishment is a somewhat fuzzy one.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 8:48:15 PM
As you say, torture might, in some cases, produce the truth. But it often does not and--given the consequences of the action--it's not worth the risk unless there is a need for IMMEDIATE verification and the chance for IMMEDIATE verification. I guess you hesitate to agree with me that the consequences of the actions are very important for all concerned.
"My point is that the line distinguishing torture from "legitimate" methods of interrogation or punishment is a somewhat fuzzy one."
Right. But that doesn't mean that the line is not worth preserving.
Posted by: Unreal Veal | Oct 7, 2007 8:55:23 PM
I'm with Davis on the ticking time bomb case.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 7, 2007 8:58:57 PM
Davis,
In the ticking time-bomb scenario you break the law and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.
But what if you don't, from fear that the court will not have mercy on you, and millions die as a result of your inaction? That's why torture in such scenarios needs to be accommodated within the law.
If there actually was a bomb, and your actions saved the day, no jury would convict, no prosecutor would seek an indictment.
Would you convict, if you were a jury member? Would you indict, if you were a prosecutor? Or are you saying that you think the act of torturing someone in a TTB case is wrong and should be punished only when turns out to be ineffective or unsuccessful, and that it's right and that the torturer should get away with it with impunity when it turns out to work?
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 7, 2007 9:02:25 PM
