NPR.org, March 19, 2008 · Allegations that CIA agents used waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" against suspected members of al-Qaida have made headlines recently. The debate over whether such techniques — which some call torture — are ever necessary has reverberated in the halls of Congress, at the White House and across the nation.

Many Americans find such harsh interrogation techniques abhorrent and believe they should be banned. They undermine American values, they say, and rarely produce worthwhile intelligence.

Others argue that harsh interrogation is sometimes necessary, especially when dealing with a brutal and implacable enemy. They say that the techniques can yield valuable information about planned terrorist attacks, and that innocent lives might be saved.

Six experts on interrogation techniques recently took on the issue in an Oxford-style debate, part of the series Intelligence Squared U.S. The debates are modeled on a program begun in London in 2002: Three experts argue in favor of a proposition and three argue against.

In the latest debate, held on March 11, the formal proposition was "Tough interrogation of terror suspects is necessary."

Minds were changed during the debate. Before the debate, 46 percent of the audience voted in favor of the motion — that tough interrogation of terror suspects is necessary — while 35 percent opposed it (with 19 percent undecided). By the end of the session, 53 percent opposed the motion and only 40 percent favored it, with 7 percent still undecided.

The event was held at Asia Society and Museum in New York City and moderated by veteran journalist Brooke Gladstone, managing editor and co-host of the public radio program On the Media.

Highlights from the debate:

Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal, says: "Uncertainty is an interrogator's most powerful ally. It can lead the detainee to believe that the interrogator is in total control, and holds the key to his future. An interrogator facing a resistant Taliban explosives-maker, for example, might angrily hoist the prisoner up by his collar and storm out of the interrogation booth. The detainee had previously understood that American interrogators couldn't so much as lay a finger on them. Suddenly, he doesn't know what the interrogator's limits are. That frightening uncertainty can change his calculations about whether to cooperate. ... Intelligence about terror planning is our only sure defense against attack. Nothing else matters. Interrogators facing the urgent need to get life-saving information from terrorists with likely knowledge of future plots should be allowed to use stress when the questioning techniques designed for lawful prisoners of war are not working."
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88478965&m=88616538

Rick Francona, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and military analyst for NBC News, says: "I'm probably the only one on the stage that's been waterboarded. I don't consider it torture, but by no means do I consider it pleasant, and it's not something you sign up to do, you know, for your summer camp. The Air Force did it during our training to show us what it was like — the purpose of it was to show us the treatment that we could expect as potential prisoners of war. And the point was made and I want to underscore this: Never in our history have we gone into a conflict and our prisoners been treated right; the Geneva Convention was an attempt to make that happen. I submit that it has failed miserably. It restricts what we can do — we make sure we treat people right, and we get no reciprocal treatment at all."

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88478965&m=88616538


David Rivkin, a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center who's served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, says: "We're at war with an implacable and ruthless foe that thinks nothing about killing civilians by the thousands and is seeking to kill millions more. I don't think anybody would disagree about obtaining intelligence is vital in this war. And we can debate, theoretically, the proposition that other techniques work, but it's a matter of fact. There are instances where hardened anti-operatives did not prove susceptible to these kinder, gentler techniques, and yet provided intelligence when they were subjected to stressful interrogation techniques."
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88478965&m=88616538


John Hutson, former judge advocate general of the Navy who is now president and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, says: "By the DOD's own count, approximately 40 people have been killed in the hands of the United States, in detention, as homicides. So let's not kid ourselves that this is some sort of benign search for the truth. Torture was never intended to be that. Torture was intended originally to be an effort to get false confessions. You're a heretic; you're a traitor to the king; you're a witch. We've given a bad name to torture. We've misapplied torture — we're trying to use it to find the truth, for Pete's sake. … Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, tort history shows that they are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Our greatest strength is our ideas and our ideals. The enemy is completely bereft of ideas … and ideals. Thomas Paine said in 1776, 'The cause of America is the cause of all mankind.' Several hundred years later, that great geopolitical commentator Bono said, 'America isn't just a country, it's an idea.'"

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88478965&m=88616538


Darius Rejali, professor of political science and chairman of the political science department at Reed College, says: "Good torture creates bad intelligence, involves torturing thousands of innocents, while the terrorists run free. It destroys our soldiers who are forced to put in these positions [sic], we have the studies, and the organizations. And limited time makes all these effects worse, not better. That's the data. The professional Gestapo knew this. The Japanese Kempei Tai knew this. Even occasionally a Spanish inquisitor figured this one out."

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88478965&m=88616538


Jack Cloonan, a 25-year veteran of the FBI and president of the global risk and crisis management firm Clayton Consultants, says: "When we engage in these techniques, there is a pushback from the opposition. And what does that pushback mean to you? What does that mean to you and your families? Because when we push back and when we engage in these [types] of techniques, the opposition is duty-bound, the enemy, as we've heard described here tonight, is duty-bound to get revenge. … There's too much at stake — your safety is at stake — to engage in harsh interrogation techniques, which is going to cause the enemy to seek revenge against each of you."

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88478965&m=88616538


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478965

An intellectual debate? in th political forums?
Never gonna happen

It can happen.
Even here as on NPR!!
This story gives readers opinions from both sides of the ilse.

Would you gather good information from torture? I do not think so. Look back in history and you will find women who admited to being witches under torture by the catholic church. I imagine once torture reaches a certain level you will say just about anything to make it stop. All we have gained from this is to debase ourselves before the world for information that is probably worthless and I wonder how many innocents suffered this simply by being related or knoweing the wrong people. Its a huge stain on our country and a shamefull time for america

I am in agrement with you Madison. I thought I might offer expert opinions from both sides of the issue so that,
A- I will not be accussed of only studying one side of the issue, and
B-Possibly starting a more civil debate on the subject with people who are equally informed.

For those who arent now they have a place to start!

It kept us safe here at home. I still place my bets on America rather than the mid east as far as prisoner treatment. It amazes me how some want to continue to bash America instead of placing the balme where it belongs...on terrorists & the brainswashing they provide people in their country. STONE AGED thinking.

That's the only thing getting people killed.

Oh...it won't be long before Hillary starts attacking fellow Americans with all this power she has. After all, she's going to be tap dancing around countries like China et al. right? She's not going to be concerned with what's going on at home.

All I have to say about torture is this:

If you torture somebody long enough, harsh enough, they are going to tell you that they are the goodship lollypop, who landed on the grassy knoll and Al Qaeda is ran by Zygloop the Grey Alien from Nibiru.

Where's the outrage...when US soldiers...are captured...tortured and killed ?...

Leaving aside the entire argument regarding the moral and legal implications of torture let's look at this fact.

The reality of torture is that it does not produce reliable information.

I am not advocating supplying violent enemies cable tv and pats on the head but let's use some logic here ladies.

It is not the 'intelligence' gathered that has 'kept us safe at home', it is the fact that troops are over there keeping the terrorists running, hiding and fighting in their own back yard.





It's there and it has been shown here (in forums) in past as well. However those who have taped and shown Americans and other nationals being tortured / beheaded etc are not trying to get information. Their use of it is to instill fear, to show that they do not fear the Forces aligned against them.

..................

Torture has never been a reliable form of intelligence gathering. It has already been proven and acknowledged that the 'intelligence' gained from torture is unreliable. Enough truth to sound right and lots of 'gibberish' so that it sounds like you are trying to tell the interrogators what they "want and / or need to hear".

Each nation tries to show that it is better than it's enemy. Torture used by either side of a conflict does not advance that image.

Humm it's my bet that torturing some posters here might yeild some interesting intelligence...

Oh wait...I take that back...you can't get blood from a stone.

Yeah, you'd better

See,
I count three good posts!!

Righteous karma.
Americans dont , didn't, torture prisoners of war before Bush. We have always shown that we are better than that.
Our soldiers were not always treated the same in return, but the idea of fair and humane treatment by us was always a sense of pride to us.

We gladly faced these animals sacrificing with our life if necessary to defeat them and rid the world of their kind.
Ideas like this, which have made America a great humanitarian leader, are what made many of us serve. We knowingly and willingly faced the danger that we might, if captured, face this treatment just to rid the world of such animals.

Two wrongs never make a right and it pains me that my country would legalize the very behavior I have abhorred my whole life.

Well, this is without a doubt, a topic for with heavy moral and ethical considerations. All of you are no doubt familiar with the old hypothetical that goes something like:

"If your daughter was being held by a group of murderers and rapists and one of their co-conspirators was captured, would you be comfortable (relatively speaking) with the idea and practice of torture in order to obtain information about her location, possibly resulting in her life being saved?"

It is a hypothetical and as such, there are issues with it. It is the perfect scenario and here again, we are talking about someone captured who we have strong reason to believe knows enough to possibly spare her life.

What would you do? Would you, if this situation presented itself, allow for torture? If you are opposed to such treatment of people (on any and all grounds) would you be willing to run the risk of losing your daughter? Would you be able to handle looking in the mirror again, or looking at your wife, friends, family, etc...?

This isn't a "trick" question and to be honest, the moral and ethical ramifications are severe, leading me to question how I would react.

Still, I think it would be very hard for me to argue against any and all methods of information gathering, including torture. One could also argue a slightly different scenario: Let's say that my daughter (I don't have one but follow me here) was being held and YOU had to make the decision regarding how far to push the captured individual. You don't know me and you don't know my daughter. Would this change your mind or alter your willingness to apply such techniques?

It is a fascinating topic. I know that the answers are not easy and that even the questions are tough but sometimes it's good to apply a practical (if unlikely) situation out there for people to debate. And to that end, I hope that all of you will engage in such a debate.

Thanks for reading,
Drew

If this were the case the torturer would be given a presidential pardon. This would probably be the first time in history the person would deserve it. Lets face it its never hollywood in the real world.

While you are at it, how about you telling us what this has to do with torturing POW's.

Then follow your own hypothetical scenario. Suppose you torture the man and they give give you information about the where abouts of your daughter, only when you get there you find out he lied. Before you get back to practice your torture on him again he dies.
Now you have no way to find your daughter and no hope of ever finding her.
Also the guy you just killed turns out to be the brother of the one who has your daughter. Now he gets angry and revengefully kills your daughter.

How do you feel now???

Ain't this ridiculous?

That depends on what your definition of torture is. Hanging someone on a rope with their hands tied behind their back...beating someone... those sort of things are what I consider torture to be.

Mind games for the sake of saving lives & keeping Americans protected is not my definition of torture.

So the psychological damage from one of these cases of a sociopathic rapist types who locks up his victim, isn't necessarily part of the problem?

The constant torment by some group of horribly raised children that leads to the suicide of another child, thats not a problem, suicide kid's just weak?

However you want to "define" something, like what the definition of the word "is" is, happens to just be a loophole, whether legal or moral.

If you damage a person, be that physical, mental or sexual, I see no definitive place between those to things draw the line.

We are supposed to be the "Light of the World", but instead we act more like the Nazi's and other aspiring global empires than we do a beacon of freedom.

Torture does have one consistent side effect. It creates MORE terrorists.

Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video

AFP
Sunday, Jan 25, 2009

Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.


A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.

“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.


Full article here

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q