Dumb Intelligence By Robert Baer

Link

*Please read the article for background info prior the review =D

"Obama shouldn't stop at declassifying the memos (torture accounts). He needs to launch a full-scale investigation into our intelligence-gathering practices over the past eight years, because once you get past the details of what was made legal to fight the war on terrorism, there's an even starker realization: we tortured people for almost no verifiable information."

Point 1: 

I feel that President Obama should not declassify the torture memos as it can spark off even more feelings of hatred & resilience amongst terrorist groups & hence, spur them on to continue their activities in efforts to 'avenge' the torture their fellow captured terrorist or leader has gone through. For example, prior the 9/11 attacks, there has been no reported cases of Al-Queda in Irqa but post 9/11, the numbers grew. Whilst the idea of brotherhood and loyalty remains entrenched strongly in the values of terrorist groups, greater efforts will be put in in training members to be tolerant of pain & more resilient towards torture methods.

However, declassifying torture memos may serve a good cause in deterring smaller, potential terrorist groups from plotting against the US. Such groups usually lack military power & holds little cause for loyalty due to their small size. One would be unwilling to put themselves in the risk knowing the consequences of their actions if they are caught for a cause that only a few people support.

Hence, instead of declassifying the memos, I feel that a better way is to re-evaluate the investigations & intelligence-gathering techniques in the CIA & inform the public on the procedures, if neccesary, of a typical intelligence-gathering process. The procedures can prevent the torturing of people for 'almost no verifiable information' & also stamp down practices of torture such as waterboarding without proper training in the technique in the name of extracting information. Such as is in the example given in the article, where 'a former CIA colleague... admits he had almost no training in the technique & knew nothing about how the cumulative effect of waterboarding might affect the quality of the information he was trying to extract.' This could probably shed more light on the investigation processes of the CIA & achieve a more balanced benefit of both classifying and declassifying torture memos.

"The crucial point... but stuff that could have been extracted through patient & relentless pursuasion"

Point 2:

I disagree with Baer that the implied non-usage of violence could have extracted the vital information extracted via torture tactics of the al-Qaeda leader Aba Zubaydah. Methods of persuasion may work for some terrorists but not all, even more so a leader who represents the head of their cause. In fact, relentless persuasion may result in even inaccurate answers. The lower degree of seriousness & urgency can greatly diminish the quality of the information, compared to when torture is being used, where clearer messages of seriousness is being sent out. Moreover, would one so easily give away communication tools, safe houses and codes simply with just relentless persuasion? Force & violence is needed where applicable & certainly in this case with the main masterminds of such terrorist groups.

"In the declassified Justice Department... There are ticking time bombs out there. But torture won't get us any closer to discovering when they're going to go off."

Point 3:

In my opinion, I do feel that torture is able to 'get us closer to discovering when' future terrorist attacks can happen. Torture is and has been used as a method of interrogation & dates back to as early as 2 AD, & as quoted, 'people will say anything to make pain stop.' The fact that this method of interrogation has survived through the decades shows us that there is value in the use of torture in interrogation. Moreover in the example given in the article, 'it was only after the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah that the authorities learned about Ramzi Binalshibh, a midlevel al-Qaeda member who helped co-ordinate the Sept. 11 attacks'. Hence, how can Baer say that we cannot use torture to deterring terrorist attacks? By learning more about the organization & breaking their advantage of secrecy, many plots and key masterminds in the plots can be tracked down & even captured, moving us one step closer to fighting terrorism.

Torture, nevertheless, should not be used as the primary method to obtain information. Persuasion & peaceful methods should always be carried out first to extract information before the last resort of torture should be used. I do agree that 'people will say anything to make pain stop', hence compromising the integrity and quality of the information extracted. No doubt even a terrorist have rights, & we should, ultimately as fellow humans, give them the right speak up. However, if they choose to deny this right given to them, we should, also, be given the right to fight for the lives they have unrightly taken away.

Cheers,

Jonathan Lim

Yue Fang's Review =D

This is the URL to the article:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1896815,00.html

The problem with Abstinence Only education was not the Abstinence, it was the Only. The most effective message, as evidenced in every other industrial country with teen pregnancy rates far lower than ours, is to advocate postponement of sexual activity while providing full and complete information on contraception, decision-making and disease prevention.

Point 1: The writer point is that we should carry out comprehensive programs that also teach about birth control and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

However, I do not entirely agree with this point. The problem with parents allowing their kids to have birth control is that it sends a message that it's alright for them to have sex. Although it is true that if one is more informed about the consequences(through comprehensive education) of having sex before marriage, they will know why and how they are suppose to prevent that from happening. Yet again, we start to question our true purpose in carrying out sex education. Are we discouraging them to have sex before marriage? Or are we encouraging them to practice safe sex before marriage so that there will be lower risk of getting pregnant? No matter how good the results are when the country advocates the postponement of sexual activity by providing complete information, it depends on whether the society see it as morally right
and take it to consideration.


The increased emphasis on abstinence in the past 15 years has been one factor in pushing back the age at which kids have their first sexual encounters, reducing the number of partners they have and lowering both the teen abortion rates and pregnancy rates (though this year has seen a small uptick).

Point 2: The writer is telling us that emphasis on abstinence in past 15 years is one of the factor which is helping the society reduce the number of children taking part in sexual activity.

However, the writer is asserting her point without any clear edvidence. Firstly, there is no edvidence provided that shows that emphasis on abstinence is an effective policy to curb sexual activity in youths. Hence, we cannot assume that emaphsis on abstinence is one of the reason why there is decreasing trend in youths participanting in sexual activty before marriage. Also, even if it plays a role in helping to posepone sexual activity in youths, how great is its role in educating and reducing sexual activity amongst youths?


This message isn't hard; it just isn't as tidy as Just Do It or Just Say No. So Bristol Palin, in all her complexity as target and role model, sitting there with the beautiful baby she wishes hadn't been born for another 10 years, is a perfectly natural messenger.

Point 3: The writer agrees that Bristol is a suitable messenger to spread the message of postponement of sexual activity amongst youths. Despite that, she did not practice that message herself even being the daughter of the first female vice presidential candidate.

I do not agree with the writer entirely. Even if she is regretful and is trying to make up for her wrong-doing, society may not accept her as a rightful messenger to advocate the message of postponement of sexual activity in youths. As her mother (Sarah Palin) being the candidate for vice presidential position represents the to-be government of the country. Briston actions not only affect Sarah’s reputation, it also creates problem for the government to address the irony here (The state discouraging early sexual activity amonst youths is not practicing the message as seen in Sarah Palin’s daugther case). So, by allowing her to advocate the message, it may bring about cynical remarks from the people. The message pass down to the people wil not be as clear as having it pass down by a non-government associated group of people.

Happy reading everyone! Do not forget to comment!