*Please read the article for background info prior the review =D
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
According to your point: I do feel that torture is able to 'get us closer to discovering when' future terrorist attacks can happen.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, terrorists are extremists who do not surrender to the pain inflicted on them during torture. This is especially the case for dedicated and dangerous terrorist who are more concern about their work than their lives; they are prepared to lose their lives by carrying out such terror acts.
Secondly, torture is not necessary to force one to reveal information. Matthew Alexander being an advocate of a different kind of interrogation reveals that “When you use coercion, a detainee might tell you the location of a house, but if you use cooperation they will tell you if the house is booby-trapped, and that's a very important difference”.
This shows that, torture is not the only method to force information out of someone. There is alternative method such as coercion that they can carry out and does not go against any of the moral issues.
Comparing with 3 years of fruitless interrogation, it took Alexander's team just two months of questioning detainees to get one of them to reveal the location of Zarqawi's safe house. In response to that information, they managed to find and kill al-Qaida leader in June 2006. Hence, torture is not necessarily an effective measure to reveal information from a terrorist, and the CIA should replace extreme torture with coercion since it yields a better result.
-Yue Fang
Yup(: that's why torture should only be used as a last resort to obtain information. However, I do question the last statement where, 'the CIA should replace extreme torture with coercion since it yields a better result.'
ReplyDeleteAs you have mentioned, 'terrorists are extremists who do not surrender to the pain inflicted on them during torture'. Similarily, the ideology spurring many terrorists in 'fighting' can be coercion's Achilles' heel. Many of these terrorists will be willing to sacrifice their loved ones for their ideology, as with the thousands of innocent civilians they have killed 'in the name of Allah'. As quoted from leader Osama Bin Laden,
"T]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."
As such, I do believe that coercion, in the form of threatening the safety of one's loved ones, etc, will be limited in its effectiveness in obtaining information
Nevertheless, a debate on the types of information-gathering will only lead to a pointless conclusion. What I believe is that torture & coercion, together with peaceful co-operation tactics should be used to obtain information from terrorists. Different terrorists have different mindsets & loyalties to their respective ideals, hence, a method of coercion may work more effectively than torture for one, whilst torture might work better for another more weak-hearted terrorist. In my opinion, psychological analysis & peaceful co-operation should be used to first obtain information from terrorists, & harder methods of interrogation should not be hesitated to be used in the event that peaceful methods prove uneffective in obtaining information.
Cheers,
Jonnehs
P.S : this is fun (:
I agree with Jonathan on point 3 that torture is an effective way to interrogate terrorists, though it is not the best. Terrorists would not reveal the whereabouts of their fellow members in the group, nor divulge any plans. Torturing them would be useful in forcing the loyal terrorists to provide more information about their plans and their members. The effectiveness of torture is the reason why America is still using it as a method to obtain more information from the terrorists. The basis of torture rests on the fact that people will only cooperate and reveal information when they are in pain.
ReplyDeleteHowever, everyone has a right, and no one has the power to use such a harsh method on the terrorists. Though they are termed ‘terrorists’, no one knows for sure whether they are terrorists or not, unless they admit it themselves. What if the person is really innocent? Who is going to compensate the physical injuries of him/ her? Most importantly, the emotional trauma left behind by the torture cannot be erased. Using torture to interrogate people is a violation of human rights, as no human being should be treated in such a harsh manner. Furthermore, although the use of torture does make people talk, how are the authorities going to ascertain whether the information provided by the terrorists is correct or not? They might utter some nonsense when they are in pain, but the CIA might believe them and launch a series of actions, only to find that the information provided is totally wrong. This is not only a waste of time and effort, but also the precious resources allocated to combat terrorism.
Therefore, in my views, torture should only be used on extremely uncooperative terrorists, where there are no other ways to make them reveal any information.
-Anna
I disagree with Jonathon's 2nd point in saying torture beats persuasion. This is because i feel that when a person such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is well trained and with so much disregard to his own life, needs to keep something so strictly confidential, they WOULD risk their lives to protect it. Firstly, being unfathomably sacrificial is the nature of beinf a terrorist. Secondly, being a terrorist also means they are so deeply loyal to their beliefs that they would do anything to secure its future. Hence torture may just be a waste of effort and time as there is nothing one can get out of these very determined people.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, even though torture will always give answers(assuming that some of these terrorists are breakable), the answers may not be reliable. Thus torture becomes too effective in a way that even a person who knows nothing is capable of making up an account just to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear to stop the torture. This then becomes misleading.
Hence, this brings up one point of mine which would agree with Jonathon's second point. Torture should not be used as it depends on the interrogater and whether he has heard what he wants to hear. The more he is dissatisfied, the more he will torture. Hence this could turn into a biased situation whereby a person who is telling the truth is still forced to tell a lie as he is not believed. Hence the interrogater has to be well trained unlike the author's former CIA colleague to detect lies and also truths if torture is used.
Lastly, i think persuasion is better than torture as there is an opportunity of civilised negotiation between the criminal and the CIA whereby a good deal can be struck without hurting anyone and escalating the issue and hatred further. :D
~jo