Does intelligence failure justify torture?

2014-12-11T07:12:32-05:00

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090420_torture_and_u_s_intelligence_failure#axzz3LQKKLpE1

Torture and the U.S. Intelligence Failure

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 7:24 AM

2014-12-11T07:24:33-05:00

No, I don't think it does, SGM Private RallyPoint Member, but I would caveat that. If some scumbag terrorist has perishable information that could save American lives ... Well, I'd have to look at those situations on a case-by-case basis.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 7:30 AM

2014-12-11T07:30:58-05:00

I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis but if American lives are at stake, I believe we have to do what it takes to get what we need to take the terrorists down

Response by SGT James Hastings made Dec 11 at 2014 9:13 AM

2014-12-11T09:13:11-05:00

I think the Geneva Convention addresses that.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Dec 11 at 2014 11:00 AM

2014-12-11T11:00:50-05:00

If there is a gap in intelligence and a clear and present threat to American lives...

You're damn straight it justifies torture. If it saves lives, and closes the gap, then it's a necessary evil.

All those we tortured are still alive. 3,000 people who were crushed into paste are not.

We treat our Special Forces worse during training.

This whole subject is a red herring.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 10:58 AM

2014-12-11T10:58:21-05:00

If it actually rose to the level of torture, and I have seen nothing to indicate that it did, then *that* would be an intelligence failure in itself.

More on the subject: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/where-do-you-stand-on-the-issue-of-torture/364826

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 11 at 2014 11:07 AM

2014-12-11T11:07:15-05:00

"Does intelligence failure justify torture?"

The thread topic reads like the old (dumb) joke
"Do you still beat your wife?"
Answering yes means your a wife beater.
Answering no means you used to be a wife beater

How about... does having an enemy combatant in your hands that has critical information justify using interrogation techniques some may find unpleasant.

YES it does.
Only the politically bent or naive think otherwise.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 12:55 PM

2014-12-11T12:55:06-05:00

Neither intelligence failure nor anything else ever justifies torture. The problem is how do you define torture and how do you apply that definition to various fact patterns. The current public debate suffers from an intermixing and mixing up of legal definitions, with moral interpretations and subjective opinion based most often on emotional response. In a 1978 opinion the European Court held that the British Army's treatment of 14 IRA prisoner (treatment that far exceeded anything conducted by the CIA) was “inhumane and degrading,” but did not constitute torture." The Irish government is currently trying to get the EU Court to re-open this case, but this very opinion was part of the legal briefs that supported the Bush administration legal opinions that stated "enhanced interrogation" was not torture and was permissible. Legal definitions don't always line up with individuals personal opinions or emotional responses, and as many lawyers will tell you morality and the law have about as much chance of intentionally aligning as a solar eclipse. That is not to say that we should not keep trying, but law and personal morality are a venn diagram with an often shifting area of overlap. Whether an act is legally definable as torture is one debate, whether that same act is morally torture or maybe more accurately whether such acts are moral regardless of the nomenclature attributed to them is a wholly separate debate. Both debates are necessary but they should be kept separate. Such debates though should be done with an eye to the future addressing how we want to move forward and apply these policies to current and future operations. The current effort by the Senate majority to place black and white definitions to actions that often occurred under very grey and ambiguous conditions is coming across as a highly political act bent of placing blame and enhancing a political narrative rather than bringing greater clarity to our forces on acceptable and affective methods of detention and interrogation in an age of non-state entity initiated hostilities. Should the CIA have been as engaged as they were in covert operations on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the needs of intelligence gathering? Probably not, black ops units and killer drones are sexy, but probably took the CIA's eye off the ball of their primary mission of intel gathering. Should we have delegated so much of our interrogation and intel analysis to contractors? Again probably not in hind sight. Is it possible torture took place, even given the definitions of "enhanced interrogation"? Quite possibly. Were such actions condoned and endorsed by the administration at the time? Highly unlikely. The Senate report points to a great deal of push back by CIA field operations to oversight by the HQ and by the administration. Instead wrapping over 13 years of war into one report attempting to pin a broad brushed and generalized blame on a few senior administration officials to achieve a political objective, it might have been more productive to have reviewed the records of all interrogations and made recommendations that any case that appeared to exceed the limits of the definitions of torture and enhanced interrogation as they were understood at the time the actions were taken be referred for further in-depth investigation and possible prosecution. A separate report then should have been produced evaluating the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation and making recommendations, not for prosecuting those who defined it or who practiced it, but on whether it should be permanently discontinued as a matter of law from any future use, or if it is permissible when, to what extent and under what specific circumstances is it permitted.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 11 at 2014 1:22 PM

2014-12-11T13:22:52-05:00

A few thoughts in response to intelligence and torture.
- The legal and political definitions of torture seem to be very different. Interesting that Senate Dems think torture occurred but that the Attorney General has not prosecuted any supposed torture crimes.
- Strategic intelligence capability is a combination of resources, people, capability, and policy over time. It is very easy to eliminate a capability but much harder to regenerate that capability once eliminated.
- How strategic decision makers use intelligence is a different issue from if there is an "intelligence failure". I think too much is being placed upon "intelligence failures" when the problem the failure of strategic decision makers to act upon the intelligence they are given. ISIS is but one example.
- Our Commander in Chief should have as many different "tools in his toolbox" as possible. The decision to use a tool is a different issue from whether or not to have the tool. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.
- At the end of the day, I do not see this as a black and white issue. I see this as a cost / benefit / risk issue whereby a final decision is based upon an evaluation of these three criteria.
-

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2014 4:40 PM

2014-12-12T16:40:57-05:00

It is sometimes easier for politicians when confronted about their mistakes to cry out the incompetence of those who sacrifice even their own humanity to get the job done. Is it torture on trials here or the failure for some politicians to admit their mistakes that might have misled the effort of our military to solve the issues that were brought to its attention?

Response by AN Wade Noble made Dec 12 at 2014 7:34 PM

2014-12-12T19:34:16-05:00

Of course it would have to be on a case by case situation. We can't just torcher someone to see IF he knows something. In the end yes we should squeeze every drop of info we can out of someone who does have info that would lead to saving lives. at the end of the day it comes down to "All's fair in love and war".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2014 12:40 PM

2014-12-17T12:40:07-05:00

It's not hard to feel some sympathy for those that do it in the name of protecting the people and nation that I love, however there is no doubt in my mind that such actions are evil and that torture is always wrong.

Response by CMSgt Ray Theriault made Dec 17 at 2014 1:50 PM

2014-12-17T13:50:33-05:00

This same goofy line has been used (besides in the StratFor piece Dan provided a link to) all over the place since the Senate report was finally released: "...Assume you knew that a certain individual knew the location of a nuclear device planted in an American city...."

That premise is faulty when posited by US media (ha ha!!!) folks and know-it-all-but-never-have-been-there pundits as well as in real-world situations. That is: how the hell do you "know for sure that this captive knows a damned thing" ??? The pre-supposing notion that he has the info required to save lives comes to us: how ??

For the sake of surveys, it's easy to ask: "He has the info, we're FOR SURE, 100%, so: should we torture?" Most bleeding-heart types would still say no that that, where semi-bleeding hearts and the rest will mostly likely say "have at it."

But it's a stupid premise, cartoonish, even.

In real-world sits, there's even less assuredness that a captive even knows what country he's really in, let alone be the sole holder of American-life-saving information. Hogwash.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2014 3:40 PM

2014-12-17T15:40:18-05:00

I think the fact people blame the intelligence community for this is ridiculous. I have been in the Army Intel world and I will tell you that we make no decisions we put out the information we have ( timely Intel is not always easy to get) and commanders make decisions based off of it. If we aren't giving Intel how are we supposed to help with the decision making process? This is an intelligence gathering issue not an intelligence failure.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2014 4:06 PM

2014-12-31T16:06:22-05:00

EIT was necessary immediately after 9/11. After 2002, No it does not. I do not condone teaching it either.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 8:37 AM

2015-01-27T08:37:06-05:00

Sometimes I think all we have to do is have a captured person sit through some of the meetings we hold. After an hour of listening to mindless droning, they'll tell us anything to get back to a quiet cell...or my office.

Response by SSG Jessica Bautista made Nov 24 at 2016 7:09 AM

2016-11-24T07:09:58-05:00

Unit 731 used human experimentation as a means of research and development of chemical and biological warfare, with the ultimate goal of putting their soldiers at an advantage. Logically, this would be similar to using torture to gather information, except torture wouldn't produce the same accurate data.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 27 at 2023 2:11 AM

2023-06-27T02:11:51-04:00

Here is my second attempt at responding to your post my friend SGM Private RallyPoint Member It is noteworthy that I am the second person to upvote your post.
The post title 'Does intelligence failure justify torture?' reminded me about definitions for intelligence.
Please consider upvoting SGT Dan Coberly's post
1. The lack of failure of intelligence is applicable to imbeciles, idiots [not the ignorant] and fools of all sorts.
2. The failure of artificial intelligence is part of the development and improvement of artificial intelligence applications. Design, produce, evaluate, modify design and engineering, retest, evaluate, etc.
3. There is physical torture including sleep deprivation, electric shock torture, psychiatric torture, mental torture and other forms of torture.
4. Muslim terrorists used torture on captive CIA officers, Israeli citizens, captured MOSAD and military personnel. The capture and torture of Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Beirut William Francis Buckley [ former United States Army officer in the United States Army Special Forces, and a until 1985]. His cover was as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy. He was kidnapped by the group Hezbollah in March 1984. His torture resulted in the elimination of all US and allied nation covert operatives throughout the region of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestinian territories add elsewhere. In that case and others torture has extracted valuable information to the torturers.
5. Torture has been with humanity since ancient times - the Egyptians, Romans, Greek city states, ancient Greeks, Mongols, Incas, Aztecs all practices torture - sometimes for religious offerings, sometimes for fun in sport including the Roman circus - burning at the stake, feeding the lions with human beings, etc. In more recent times, the German Nazis and their deplorable allies including Vichy French practiced torture routinely. The Japanese culture worshiped the emperor and considered surrender worse that death. The routinely tortured Chinese, Korean, and others from 1933 on in their occupied territories. After 1939, they tortured British citizens, British commonwealth nation citizens and military personnel. After 1941 the tortured US military personnel, philistine citizens and military personnel, New Guinea people and many others. To them torture was routine in warfare and in occupation for pleasure and to gain information.

The inquisition was a formal torture application process. The focus was on finding and torturing heretics - Jews, protestants, Muslims, those who opposed the pope at the time, etc
Background from {[history.com/topics/religion/inquisition]]
The Inquisition was a powerful office set up within the Catholic Church to root out and punish heresy throughout Europe and the Americas. Beginning in the 12th century and continuing for hundreds of years, the Inquisition is infamous for the severity of its tortures and its persecution of Jews and Muslims. Its worst manifestation was in Spain, where the Spanish Inquisition was a dominant force for more than 200 years, resulting in some 32,000 executions.

Catharists
The Inquisition has its origins in the early organized persecution of non-Catholic Christian religions in Europe. In 1184 Pope Lucius III sent bishops to southern France to track down heretics called Catharists. These efforts continued into the 14th Century.
During the same period, the church also pursued the Waldensians in Germany and Northern Italy. In 1231, Pope Gregory charged the Dominican and Franciscan Orders to take over the job of tracking down heretics.The Job of Inquisitors
Inquisitors would arrive in a town and announce their presence, giving citizens a chance to admit to heresy. Those who confessed received a punishment ranging from a pilgrimage to a whipping.
Those accused of heresy were forced to testify. If the heretic did not confess, torture and execution were inescapable. Heretics weren’t allowed to face accusers, received no counsel and were often victims of false accusations.
Bernard Gui wrote the influential guidebook for Inquisitors called “Conduct of the Inquisition into Heretical Depravity” in the early 14th Century. Gui himself pronounced over 600 people guilty of heresy and was featured as a character in Umberto Eco’s novel The Name of the Rose.
There were countless abuses of power. Count Raymond VII of Toulouse was known for burning heretics at the stake even though they had confessed. His successor, Count Alphonese, confiscated the lands of the accused to increase his riches.
In 1307, Inquisitors were involved in the mass arrest and tortures of 15,000 Knights Templar in France, resulting in dozens of executions. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake in 1431, is the most famous victim of this wing of the Inquisition."
6. Torture is many times ineffective in gaining information and other times it is very effective as in the case of William Francis Buckley.
7. I am not a supporter of torture in general, I do believe that some types of torture can be effective [carrot and stick].

Torture Doesn't Work
In this video, based on his column on the subject in Scientific American, Michael Shermer demonstrates why torture does not work as a method of extracting useful and actionable information, primarily because people being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, including confessing to crimes they didn’t commit (like witchcraft) and giving false information (where a terrorist attack may happen next). Instead, studies show that developing a rapport with the person under interrogation produces higher quality intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M8JOH1YHmo

FYI MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. PFC David Foster CWO4 Terrence Clark MSG Greg KellyMSG Joseph Christofaro]CPL Ronald Keyes Jr LTC Greg Henning [ SPC Maurice Evans SFC Eric Harmon [1459261:CSM Bob Stanek] CPL Linda B.COL Randall C. LTC Private RallyPoint Member LTC Greg Henning Lt Col Charlie Brown MAJ Matthew Arnold Maj John Bell CPT Private RallyPoint Member

Torture Doesn't Work

In this video, based on his column on the subject in Scientific American, Michael Shermer demonstrates why torture does not work as a method of extracting us...

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 29 at 2023 8:48 PM

2023-07-29T20:48:27-04:00

SGM Private RallyPoint Member As a Retired Spook, I Say No!