CIA interrogations informed by bad science

[FireGarden]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ij-XF4zu-AF4LZq8waEsX2Hn0HOgD9ARQB1G0

The list of techniques the CIA used included prolonged sleep deprivation — six days in at least one instance — being chained in painful positions, exploiting prisoners' phobias, and waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning that President Barack Obama has called torture. Three CIA prisoners were waterboarded, two of them extensively.

Those methods cause the brain to release stress hormones that, if their release is repeated and prolonged, may result in compromised brain function and even tissue loss, O'Mara wrote.

He warned that this could lead to brain lobe disorders, making the prisoners vulnerable to confabulation — the pathological production of false memories based on suggestions from an interrogator.

[godless dave]

It's been known for a long time that torture rarely produces useful information. This is interesting evidence of why.

I'm not surprised Bush didn't know about the ineffectiveness of torture, but I'm a little surprised the CIA didn't.

[Towlie]

I'm not surprised Bush didn't know about the ineffectiveness of torture...I'm surprised that you think he cared.

[Wolfman]

Putting "CIA" and "informed" together in the same sentence just seems rather...wrong.

[McHrozni]

Putting "CIA" and "informed" together in the same sentence just seems rather...wrong.

CIA wasn't adequately informed.
See? It can work :)

Torture is an interesting aspect ... information gained through torture is inherently unreliable, but what other way do you have to extract information from fanatics? Is unreliable information better than no information at all? Some of it may still be accurate ... do the benefits outweigh the downsides?
I don't have the answers, unfortunately.

McHrozni

[Whiplash]

I'm surprised that you think he cared.


I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.

[Wolfman]

CIA wasn't adequately informed.
See? It can work :)
That's comparable to saying, "The water wasn't adequately wet" or "The apple wasn't adequately fruit-like" ;)

[Aepervius]

CIA wasn't adequately informed.
See? It can work :)

Torture is an interesting aspect ... information gained through torture is inherently unreliable, but what other way do you have to extract information from fanatics? Is unreliable information better than no information at all? Some of it may still be accurate ... do the benefits outweigh the downsides?
I don't have the answers, unfortunately.

McHrozni

Indeed NO information is far better than unreliable information. Why ? Because with no information, you try another venue to get info, other traditional method maybe, and try to correlate bits of clue between each other. But with unreliable and probably false info, you concentrate your resource on what could fully turn out to be a dude, and thus lose time, money.

If people were using the unrelible info as just a low value bit to be correletaed by other method, it would be OK. But the problem is that the troture proponent are actually trying to use it as a shortcut to results.

[rjh01]

That's comparable to saying, "The water wasn't adequately wet" or "The apple wasn't adequately fruit-like" ;)

If water is not wet enough add detergent.

[McHrozni]

That's comparable to saying, "The water wasn't adequately wet" or "The apple wasn't adequately fruit-like" ;)

Perhaps, but it still works, doesn't it? :D

McHrozni

[Wolfman]

“Yo CIA. I'm really happy for you. I'mma let your finish, but the KGB had some of the best tortures of all time!”

[McHrozni]

Indeed NO information is far better than unreliable information. Why ? Because with no information, you try another venue to get info, other traditional method maybe, and try to correlate bits of clue between each other. But with unreliable and probably false info, you concentrate your resource on what could fully turn out to be a dude, and thus lose time, money.

Perhaps, but if every once in a while you stumble upon critical information you wouldn't get otherwise, then it might yet have merit. We'll probably never know just what did those poor bastards (and sometimes deserving bastards) said, so all we can do is speculate, unfortunately.

If people were using the unrelible info as just a low value bit to be correletaed by other method, it would be OK. But the problem is that the troture proponent are actually trying to use it as a shortcut to results.

That indeed could often be a problem. How often, we can't know.

McHrozni

[Fishstick]

information gained through torture is inherently unreliable, but what other way do you have to extract information from fanatics?

McHrozni
Let's see what Matthew Alexander has to say:

Getting results at an interrogation session essentially involves making a personal connection with the operative, according to Alexander. He reminded the audience that "hardened" Al Qaeda members are not produced in a factory.

"These are people who make decisions based on factors in their lives," Alexander said.

In one of the interviews that led to the discovery of Zarqawi's whereabouts, Alexander apologized to a Sunni imam called Abu Ali for American actions in Iraq. Three days earlier, the man had said he'd cut Alexander's throat if he could; but on the day of the apology Abu Ali cooperated by sharing the location of a safehouse for Al Qaeda bombers.

According to Alexander, Abu Ali blamed the United States for unleashing a Shiite militia that forced him from his home and killed a close friend, the sort of complaint Alexander would hear again and again. During the three days, Alexander discovered that the man also longed for reconciliation with Americans for the sake of his son and the future. So Alexander not only apologized, but appealed to those hopes.

Matthew Alexander developed the intelligence that led U.S. forces to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Torture only works to harden someone's resolve, and to get them to spill information they think you want to hear. There are many accounts of former FBI interrogators pointing out that actually treating them like a human being instead of an abstract concept of "terrorist" provides actual useful intelligence, and proper cooperation.

ForeignPolicy (http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4193) has a very good video interview with Jack Cloonan - who spent 25 years as an FBI special agent and interrogated members of al Qaeda during the late 1990s. Another video is here, also with JC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo&eurl) pointing out how regular interrogation techniques and building up rapport work better.

[McHrozni]

Matthew Alexander developed the intelligence that led U.S. forces to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Torture only works to harden someone's resolve, and to get them to spill information they think you want to hear. There are many accounts of former FBI interrogators pointing out that actually treating them like a human being instead of an abstract concept of "terrorist" provides actual useful intelligence, and proper cooperation.

Cool, I guess. I am glad I don't have to make these choices :)

McHrozni

[FireGarden]

Fishstick,
I was going to mention the same thing.

The title of this article is a bit sensationalist:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html

But Major Alexander does specify that, during interrogations of many in Iraq, he found that a common reason they joined up to fight the USA were the abuses at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. So torture is counter-productive not just, as suggested, for the resources it wastes but because it increases support for the opposition.

[McHrozni]

But Major Alexander does specify that, during interrogations of many in Iraq, he found that a common reason they joined up to fight the USA were the abuses at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. So torture is counter-productive not just, as suggested, for the resources it wastes but because it increases support for the opposition.

I imagine that the leaders of the resistance movements blew that well out of proportions and abused it for their own gain. It probably did help them, but without that they would simply find another fault with the US forces. Perhaps not as effective one, true, but that doesn't mean all insurgents who joined because of the Abu Gharib wouldn't join otherwise. A large portion probably would join nontheless.

McHrozni

[JihadJane]

Torture is a form of terrorism.

It also creates "terrorists", a vital component of the the Anglo/US Energy wars.

[HansMustermann]

Indeed NO information is far better than unreliable information. Why ? Because with no information, you try another venue to get info, other traditional method maybe, and try to correlate bits of clue between each other. But with unreliable and probably false info, you concentrate your resource on what could fully turn out to be a dude, and thus lose time, money.

If people were using the unrelible info as just a low value bit to be correletaed by other method, it would be OK. But the problem is that the troture proponent are actually trying to use it as a shortcut to results.

It's not just that, it's that it produces actual damage. In this case it's even spelled that brain tissue is genuinely damaged. That is, in addition to genuine psychological damage.

Even if the guy turns out to have been innocent, even if you screen the information and it's false, you still caused actual harm to an innocent.

I don't see how any kind of screening or correlating the information, can excuse that basic fact. You can't treat it as just some information that came out of nowhere and look at just what you do with it. The hard fact is that that unreliable and false information, came at the expense of harming an innocent. That's a price that most of the civilized way decided it's not worth paying.

Then there's also the fact that it's an abusable thing. There's a reason why since the Magna Carta (and in several ancient civilizations before it), we want checks and fair rules, and why the focus is more on protecting the population from abuse than on delivering quick results for the cops. We all have tried just letting the king's guards kick and door in and torture anyone they want until he/she confesses, and it didn't work so well. Even for those who weren't at the very top, it wasn't an ideal situation: the Magna Carta was forced upon the king by the barons, not by the peasants.

There's a reason why we have rules like innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus, etc. Or why the phrase "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" exists in the 5'th ammendment. Torture proponents don't just do this and that with information, but genuinely throw those safeguards and checks away.

And it's no surprise that even in modern times the power of any oppressive or totalitarian regime was based, basically, on throwing those safeguards away. And on then using the threat of unjust punishments or torture as a threat to keep the population in line.

So now turning it all into just a discussion about abstract correlation of data is missing that crucial point.

Plus, how do you enforce correlation. Once torture is allowed, and given that it makes someone confess anything you want to hear, it's trivial to use it as correlation for some other false piece of data.

E.g., it's trivial to get several innocent people to confess the same thing, and then take it as correlation. The witch trials not only produced thousands of people who confessed the same crimes and in the same details, but an amazing confirmation of everything in the Maleus Maleficarum. Because everyone was asked the same thing.

E.g., it's trivial to get someone to confirm any other piece of data you have, no matter how false and unbelievable. If you get a prank tip that terrorist group Onan's Witnesses is planning to storm the white house and give the president a bukkake, you can torture some people until they confess not only the group is real and they're members, but even agree on exactly what date the attack was planned for. Gee, what an amazing correlation.

[Towlie]

I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.I guess the stupid vs. evil debate will be going on long after we're gone. The truth about Bush is probably a combination of those two factors. I wonder how historians will ultimately handle the legacy of the worst president in American history.

[godless dave]

I'm surprised that you think he cared.

I don't.

[godless dave]

Torture is an interesting aspect ... information gained through torture is inherently unreliable, but what other way do you have to extract information from fanatics?

There are other ways. Some interrogators have said they were getting good information before the torture started.

[godless dave]

I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.

Towlie didn't. But considering Bush thought attacking a country that was not a threat to us and installing a new government was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, we can certainly attribute evil to him. That's an inherently evil act.

[Praktik]

Towlie didn't. But considering Bush thought attacking a country that was not a threat to us and installing a new government was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, we can certainly attribute evil to him. That's an inherently evil act.

I think we should distinguish between evil outcomes and evil intent. Hannah Arendt's classic "The Banality of Evil" teaches that evil is much less often the result of evil intent than typically assumed.

I believe Bush truly thought his policies were the best thing for Americans - and even Iraqis. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think the outcomes of his policies have been evil, but that he is not evil himself.

[McHrozni]

There are other ways. Some interrogators have said they were getting good information before the torture started.

Yeah, I saw that above. It's interesting. Any word on how many captives they were able to convince to spill the beans without torture?

McHrozni

[Towlie]

I believe Bush truly thought his policies were the best thing for Americans...I believe Hitler truly thought his policies were the best thing for Germans.

[HansMustermann]

Well, I don't think most of the time there is such a thing as intent to do something evil. Evil overlords cackling over death-ray plans, just for the sake of causing pain and death, exist only in comic books and really really bad novels/movies.

The evil intent as defined by law for example, the "mens rea", doesn't mean the degree to which you intended to be evil, but the degree to which you intended to do an act that, as it happens, is defined as evil. E.g., if I commit premeditated murder on my neighbour, the "premeditated" is the whole extent to which the "mens rea" is judged.

And yes, the mind behind RL evil is generally a more mundane case of not giving a rat's rear as long as I achieve my goals. In a sense, that _is_ RL evil. Not caring how many people have to pay, nor what price, as long as you get what you wanted.

And in that sense, I will judge Bush and his stooges and corporate masters as evil.

[Praktik]

I believe Hitler truly thought his policies were the best thing for Germans.

Yep!

That's exactly it.

[Praktik]

Well, I don't think most of the time there is such a thing as intent to do something evil. Evil overlords cackling over death-ray plans, just for the sake of causing pain and death, exist only in comic books and really really bad novels/movies.

The evil intent as defined by law for example, the "mens rea", doesn't mean the degree to which you intended to be evil, but the degree to which you intended to do an act that, as it happens, is defined as evil. E.g., if I commit premeditated murder on my neighbour, the "premeditated" is the whole extent to which the "mens rea" is judged.

And yes, the mind behind RL evil is generally a more mundane case of not giving a rat's rear as long as I achieve my goals. In a sense, that _is_ RL evil. Not caring how many people have to pay, nor what price, as long as you get what you wanted.

And in that sense, I will judge Bush and his stooges and corporate masters as evil.

Fair point. And with this approach I think you avoid the pitfall of falling into the trap of thinking along the lines of your first two sentences.

[Cayvmann]

There are other ways. Some interrogators have said they were getting good information before the torture started.

But was that "good" information the information they wanted to hear? hmmmmmmm

[godless dave]

I think we should distinguish between evil outcomes and evil intent. Hannah Arendt's classic "The Banality of Evil" teaches that evil is much less often the result of evil intent than typically assumed.

I believe Bush truly thought his policies were the best thing for Americans - and even Iraqis. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think the outcomes of his policies have been evil, but that he is not evil himself.


I never claimed he had evil intent. Evil people usually think they are doing the right thing.I would hope that nobody on this forum thinks otherwise.

[Praktik]

hehe gues syou haven't been in the CT subforums lately..;)

[davefoc]

I'm surprised that you think he cared.

I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.

I agree with Whiplash, Towlie's statement was a facile characterization of Bush as evil that was unfair, even if humor was an obvious goal of the comment.

I guess the stupid vs. evil debate will be going on long after we're gone. The truth about Bush is probably a combination of those two factors. I wonder how historians will ultimately handle the legacy of the worst president in American history.

I think the debate is more fully described as between indirectly incompetent, directly incompetent and evil.

By indirectly incompetent, I mean incompetence that was the result of excessive deference to others perhaps as the result of the manipulation of Bush through narcissism. By direct incompetence I mean the overall lack of knowledge, analytical ability and laziness that lead to an unusually high poor decision rate for a president. By evil I mean the excessive dependence on partisan or other self serving reasons as a basis for decisions by Bush.

Towlie didn't. But considering Bush thought attacking a country that was not a threat to us and installing a new government was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, we can certainly attribute evil to him. That's an inherently evil act.

With respect, I think godless dave is just wrong here. Towlie's post did suggest evil, even sociopathic tendencies in Bush. godless dave's second comment is even more problematic in my mind. I agree that the decision to attack Iraq was wrong and that the implementation of the occupation wandered into the area of criminal cronyism.

But I disagree that there weren't arguments for the invasion of Iraq and that Bush could not have judged the arguments to be persuasive without evil motivation.

[godless dave]

godless dave's second comment is even more problematic in my mind. I agree that the decision to attack Iraq was wrong and that the implementation of the occupation wandered into the area of criminal cronyism.

But I disagree that there weren't arguments for the invasion of Iraq and that Bush could not have judged the arguments to be persuasive without evil motivation.

I'm not talking about motivation, I'm talking about actions. Again, evil people usually think they're doing the right thing for the right reasons. The fact that he thought that invading a country to change its government was the right thing for the right reasons is exactly what makes him evil. I would call that an evil motivation myself, but really, motivation is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't think it's "sociopathic" to want to torture people you think are terrorists. It may show a lack of empathy, but more importantly it shows a lack of regard for the possibility that the person being tortured is not a terrorist who attacked or wanted to attack the United States. That's evil, but it's not sociopathic, it's human. Remember, some of the people tortured were Iraqi resistance fighters who were members of the military under Saddam's regime. By law and the conventions of war, they should have been treated as prisoners of war, not criminals or criminal suspects. Doing otherwise was also evil, but not sociopathic.

[themusicteacher]

It's been known for a long time that torture rarely produces useful information. This is interesting evidence of why.

I'm not surprised Bush didn't know about the ineffectiveness of torture, but I'm a little surprised the CIA didn't.

Torture (and condoning it as an effective method as Dick Cheney has repeatedly done) is like "airport security theater": It gives the appearance that the people in charge are actually doing something. Creating the illusion of security is a specialty of people who are scared to death of losing face; so they concoct half-baked, limp-wristed plans then heave insults (such as questioning their "patriotism" or calling them "weak") at people who see through said ill-thought out nonsense. It doesn't really matter that what they're doing doesn't actually work, what matters is that they talk and look tough, especially while sitting a comfortable distance away from the fray and sounding perfectly rational.

[godless dave]

Torture (and condoning it as an effective method as Dick Cheney has repeatedly done) is like "airport security theater": It gives the appearance that the people in charge are actually doing something. Creating the illusion of security is a specialty of people who are scared to death of losing face; so they concoct half-baked, limp-wristed plans then heave insults (such as questioning their "patriotism" or calling them "weak") at people who see through said ill-thought out nonsense. It doesn't really matter that what they're doing doesn't actually work, what matters is that they talk and look tough, especially while sitting a comfortable distance away from the fray and sounding perfectly rational.

Very good point. In that sense, torture did "work". It also explained why Bush and Cheney's CIA and military had regular agents and enlisted personnel doing the torture, instead of the previous practice of entrusting it only to a few agents who could be counted on to keep it secret.

I think it was also intended to serve Cheney's agenda of rolling back the reforms imposed after the Church committee reports, and his publicly stated agenda of asserting greater executive power for the president than the constitution actually provides.

[themusicteacher]

Very good point. In that sense, torture did "work". It also explained why Bush and Cheney's CIA and military had regular agents and enlisted personnel doing the torture, instead of the previous practice of entrusting it only to a few agents who could be counted on to keep it secret.

I think it was also intended to serve Cheney's agenda of rolling back the reforms imposed after the Church committee reports, and his publicly stated agenda of asserting greater executive power for the president than the constitution actually provides.

Everything Dick Cheney has ever done in his life, I am convinced, has been calculated to make him look macho, tough, in charge, powerful and, above all, patriotic. I imagine his emergence from the birth canal was orchestrated to look as though he had been "liberated" from some terrible gulag.

People like Cheney care very little, if at all, for reality. What matters is how they are perceived. If they look tough and active when torturing people, regardless of poor results, it still looks as though they're doing something. If it doesn't work, oh well, blame it on the liberals and their weak-minded opposition. I mean, look at them, they'd rather read these evildoers their rights and give them therapy than actually stop them from doing harm, right?

Everything is a mind game with neo-cons and it's a two-pronged attack: give the illusion that you're doing everything you can to stop these guys who want to hurt us(I mean, who doesn't like a Marlboro Man/Dirty Harry/John Galt/rugged individualist?) and make sure the opposition looks like a bunch of pussies (the more sense they make, the weaker and more un-American they are). Of course, as you said, it's a blatant power-grab. The weaker and more scornful you make the opposition look, the more likely people are, you suppose, to continue to give their support to you.

As I have baldly stated in previous posts about torture: bottom line, it does not work and it never will.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.Cheney has taken full responsibility for the torture program and he has publicly stated the means were justified.

What has Bush said publicly one way or the other? I believe he said repeatedly, "the US doesn't torture".

[godless dave]

Even if Towlie was attributing malice to Bush, he wasn't doing it "easily". He was doing it after observing the man's behavior over eight years.

[JihadJane]

George Bush is banal and evil.

[Vic Vega]

I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.

Malicious and evil? No, I don't think Bush was either of these.


Misguided, rigid, fundamentalist, not particularly bright... Definitely.