On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:41:47 -0700, Chris Gehlker <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If you think it's effective and still find abhorrent you are unique >> or >> nearly so. > > Then you're clearly trying hard not to hear my point. Let me > simplify it: > > 1. A detainee either knows what you want to find out, or doesn't > 2. Under torture, he may tell you the truth - effective - or he > fabricates > something to end the torture - ineffective > > I see, from reading below in the thread, that you're defining > effective in > broader terms than I was - whether it proves, overall, a positive > contribution or a negative in our strategic objectives; I was > considering > it tactically... does it, in the individual instance, reach a specific > objective. If the former, then I completely agree - in the big > picture, > it's completely counterproductive, immoral and abhorent. I thought > we were > discussing the latter - whether it ever leads to specific, objective > facts > (which, logic would dictate, it may). > > I think we're just arguing in circles.
I think you are adopting Rush's silly definition of "effective". Consider the scenario where you are the interrogator and you know that a terrorist has planted a nuclear time bomb in a major west cost city. Roger: Tell me where you planted the bomb, terrorist pig. Terrorist: I never planted any bomb. Roger: I know you planted a bomb. Torture, torture torture. Terrorist: Stop, I planted the bomb in New York. Roger: Liar, we know you planted it on the west coast. Torture, torture, torture. Terrorist: Al right, I planted it in Seattle. Roger: You are still lying! Torture, torture, torture. Terrorist: Make it stop, I planted the bomb in LA. Roger: Still lying, asshole. Torture, torture, torture. Terrorist: Please, I swear by Allah I planted it in San Francisco. Roger: Stop pulling my chain. Torture, torture, torture. Terrorist: All right, the bomb is in San Diego, Make it stop. At which point the bomb, which really was in LA, explodes, vaporizing Roger and the terrorist along with the city. Note that by your definition, Roger, this was an effective interrogation since the subject really did tell the truth at some point. But it was also totally useless. Real interrogation takes along time and involves meticulously building a rapport between the interrogators and the subjects. But the interrogators do get a sense of how truthful the subjects are being. Do you remember this case: <http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/buddhist_temple/index.html > It sticks in my mind because I know people on both the prosecution and the defense teams. The deputy sheriffs who interrogated the Tucson 4 were honest people who convinced themselves that the subjects knew things that only the murderers could know. In fact the subject were picking up on subtile clews from inflection and body language. And the interrogators used nothing stronger than some yelling and some mild sleep deprivation. My take away was that interrogators simply can't judge the effectiveness of interrogation. We should be skeptical until we have outside confirmation. --- Just because they're good at propaganda doesn't mean we have to be good at stupid. -Marty Kaplan _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
