Army Interrogators on Torture - Why It Doesn't Work.

[Chadman]

Came across this article today, found it an informative read by someone in the profession that teaches others about interrogation techniques and practices. I know it's not an imbedded YouTube link, and will be avoided by some. For those that want to "think" about something, it's a good read... - C.

Why It Doesn't Work
Army Interrogators on Torture
By STEPHEN SOLDZ

In my years in the anti-torture movement, one of the most moving experience has been getting to know military interrogators, military intelligence professionals, JAGS, and other military members who struggled to behave honorably, often at great personal cost, even when they served an administration that promoted torture and when the American public became convinced by politicians, pundits, and the media that torture was both right and necessary. Below is a recent statement by a veteran Army interrogator and interrogation instructor, 1LT(P) Marcus Lewis, who reminds his fellow interrogators of the folly of the torture promoters. Torture neither "works" nor is it moral, he reminds them.

Lewis is not alone among experienced interrogators. One of the sad facts is that when the Bush administration and the CIA were creating the torture program they ignored the opinions of experienced interrogators, preferring instead the views of psychologists without any actual interrogation experience. What they got as a result was not an effective strategy for obtaining accurate intelligence, but a program that could effectively get prisoners to say what they believed their torturers wanted to hear. The fact that occasionally a tortured soul uttered a morsel of true information is no more an argument that torture is effective than the fact that I once caught a sunfish with an empty hook proves that fishing without bait is an effective fishing strategy.

Forbes today has an article describing the similar views of an interrogator currently serving in Afghanistan:

A top United States interrogator in Afghanistan says that torture played no role in locating Osama bin Laden, and that claims to the contrary by former Bush administration officials recently is ?propaganda [that] degrades our intelligence operations more than any other factor I can think of.?

This interrogator, like so many others, emphasizes not only that torture doesn't "work" and is wrong, but that it causes great harm by creating enemies:

Such talk also creates blowback ? unintended consequences ? that can be deadly, he added in an interview. ?Simply the idea of our interrogators using torture or coercion recruits jihadists, facilitators, suppliers, supporters, and even suicide bombers, against us and our allies,? he said.
. . .

On the subject of blowback, he continued:

I cannot even count the amount of times that I personally have come face to face with detainees, who told me they were primarily motivated to do what they did, because of hearing that we committed torture. Even the rumor of torture is enough to convince an army of uneducated and illiterate, yet religiously motivated young boys to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up while killing whoever happens to be around ? police, soldiers, civilians, women, or children. Torture committed by Americans in the past continues to kill Americans today.

This interrogator, further bemoans the way in which torture promoting pundits and media injure efforts to teach effective and ethical interrogation technique to new interrogators:

?If right-wing news outlets and partisan pundits or politicians are allowed to continue to spread their completely bogus claims that torture is effective,? he said, ?then we will have corrupted the beliefs of yet another generation of new intelligence recruits?.It takes months and years of ?intervention? to get the next generation back on the track of quality work, specialization, and intelligence dominance ? not quick and easy fixes. This is not an hour-long TV show.?

Alas, it is not experienced interrogators and military intelligence personnel who need to be reminded of the folly of torture. It is new military recruits and the rest of our fellow citizens who need to hear the message of Lt. Marcus Lewis and of the Afghan interrogator interviewed by Forbes.

The rest of the story and the message Lewis gave to fellow interrogators can be found here:

http://counterpunch.org/soldz05102011.html

 

[Turfgrass]

Just a quick question for you Chad...why do we waterboard our own troops in SERE school?

And are we torturing our own troops?


By the way...I feel that everything is always on the table and the President should be left to make that call.

 

[Chadman]

I don't pretend to know what we do or don't do, nor do I think I am any special judge of what is right or not. If you say we do that, then I'll take that for what it's worth. I'd guess we do it to prepare our special troops for what they might have to deal with in certain horrible situations. Do I consider that torture? No. Do I consider that the same thing that happens in the field or in other countries when nobody is training or watching - just trying to get information? No. But I don't know.

I thought the article brought up many interesting thoughts to ponder that maybe some have not considered. I would put faith that this person has a pretty good idea about the best way to do things, though, perhaps that should carry more weight than my opinion that has no important value on that subject.

 

[Turfgrass]

Well, maybe I can give you another interesting thought to ponder:http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=7217

I Was Tortured at SERE School

I was a U.S. Army SERE Instructor. SERE stands for survival, evasion, resistance and escape. I graduated from the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center SERE Instructor Course at Camp Mackall in 1984 when COL Rowe was still the commandant and was still teaching classes there. COL Rowe was held POW in Vietnam under the worst conditions for five years until, on a work detail, he managed to kill his guard and escape. Sadly, COL Rowe was assassinated in February 1989 by communist insurgents while serving as chief of the Army division of the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group in the Philippines.* He was a great man and I am proud to have served under him.

Over at Slate, William Saletan is discussing the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammad was not subjected to any torture technique that U.S. military personnel are not routinely subjected to. The pain and discomfort Mohammad experienced was no worse than the pain and discomfort thousands of U.S. military personnel have experienced over the decades. Saletan, however, tells us that SERE training is akin to S&M but the same techniques used on al Qaeda constitute rape. Well.

Saletan argues that, since soldiers know it is training and terrorists know it isn?t, it is therefore psychologically far worse for terrorists. A psychologist points out that SERE students are being trained to defeat interrogation, not succumb. They also state that trainees know it will end on graduation day. They point out several ways that torture is psychologically easier on trainees that al Qaeda.

For the most part I don?t disagree. Knowing the guys pouring water on your face are fellow soldiers and trainers has to make it somewhat easier. He goes on to claim, however, that the most important difference is that students can quit if they so choose.

Fifth and most important, SERE is voluntary. ?Students can withdraw from training,? Ogrisseg noted. In a report issued four months ago, the Armed Services Committee added that in SERE, ?students are even given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop? any ordeal.

I disagree with this point. First and most obviously, the terrorists being interrogated can quit too. They can choose to start talking and the procedure will end. In fact, that is the very point of the exercise: talk and the water boarding will end. Terrorists, of course, don?t want to quit. I didn?t want to quit either.

As a matter of fact, SERE School is a very exclusive course. I went to great lengths to be allowed to apply for the course, to get accepted to the course and to pass the course. In the Army, voluntarily quitting a military schools is a very, very bad thing. Back in the 1980s when I served, quitting would get you what was called a ?lack of motivation discharge? from the school. Woe be to the soldier who returned to his unit with an LOM discharge.

First would come the written counseling statements for your permanent record. That alone might very well bar you from reenlistment effectively ending your military career.

Secondly, you could forget having any and all good things to happen to you and expect many bad things to start happening. Once you are an LOM you are permanently a ?shit bird? and shit birds get treated like, well, shit. You might never pass a field equipment inspection again causing ?remedial training? exercises with the rest of the shit birds on Saturday mornings. You could expect your name to come up for nasty extra duty assignments way more often than can be explained by random chance. Essentially, life in the Army sucks for an LOM. It sucks to be you if you are deemed a shit bird.

By far the worst result of quitting would be the loss of social stature among your fellow soldiers. You would be seen forever more as a ?non-hacker? who couldn?t be trusted when the shit gets deep. LOMs actually lose friends and are ostracized within their units. It is a special kind of hell that can make a soldier suffer in ways that are hard to explain and extremely hurtful. An LOM can change the trajectory of a young man?s life.

When I was subjected to the worst the trainers had to offer, I couldn?t quit. No way. Quitting would mean humiliation in front of my fellow soldiers: men from whom I wanted respect more than anyone else in the world. There was no way I could do the walk of shame into my unit headquarters carrying a lack of motivation discharge. I was a young man in my twenties and, at that point in my life, I am certain that I would have let them kill me before I would quit. Quitting was absolutely, positively out of the question. I have seen the same determination in hundreds of soldiers facing intense, harsh training.

The interrogations are no more physically painful for terrorists than for military trainees. The techniques are the same. You can argue, I suppose, that knowing that it is a training situation makes it easier on military trainees than it is on terrorist being interrogated. I do not believe, however, that for most military members who have been deemed proficient enough warriors to attend SERE training would find it any easier to quit than did Khalid Sheik Mohammad. At that time, at that age, I would have preferred death to failure. Quitting was a mortal sin that could not be contemplated. I didn?t quit. Mohammad did eventually quit.

I guess the final point I want to make from this former SERE Instructor?s perspective is this: I don?t really give a damn if KSM gets a little PSD if it saves American lives. If I could take harsh interrogation techniques, that pussy can too.

 

[Chadman]

Ok, I thought about it. Now what? The article does acknowledge differences between the two, and also talks about how rough it is for the soldiers that go through it. I am not holding up waterboarding as the only thing appropriate for discussion about torture and holding prisoners (whether terrorists or not) for years with or without cause. Apparently, one of the only things those that support torture want to discuss is waterboarding - something that SOME exclusive soldiers in intense training scenarios go through. Again - in controlled environments that will ultimately keep the soldiers from ultimate duress.

So, what kind of information do you think we get from people when they are tortured? Do you know? Do you have a clue as to every situation, every scenario, since you want to bring this to such a narrow scope? Clearly, there are those here and elsewhere that could not care less what happens to certain "types" of people, no matter what the cause or situation. I think you probably are more than that from our past discussions, but I'd be happy to discuss this more. How reliable and good can forced interrogations be? Clearly they are being done to try to extort an answer that the interrogators want to hear, in many cases. Whether that answer makes any sense or not, or helps in any way or not.

Clearly, as long as one of "our guys" is doing this, it's ok with some. But we hold this same behavior up as horrible and reprehensible when others do the same thing. Laws that cross country boundaries were enacted from common sense in times of war to hold people responsible for this, with good reason. Why is that?

Sometimes, we DO need to be better than the people we fight. Because if we're not, then we are nothing more than they are. I would even say that if this kind of thing - or others that are as bad or worse - were dependable methods of gaining correct intelligence, it would be ok. But it's not.

My main concern is holding people for years without proof or cause. I've said that repeatedly here. Those that are proven terrorists, I have to say, I don't care too much what happens, although I have problems with it because of what our country stands for. Or should.

 

[bleedingpurple]

Well, maybe I can give you another interesting thought to ponder:http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=7217

I Was Tortured at SERE School

I was a U.S. Army SERE Instructor. SERE stands for survival, evasion, resistance and escape. I graduated from the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center SERE Instructor Course at Camp Mackall in 1984 when COL Rowe was still the commandant and was still teaching classes there. COL Rowe was held POW in Vietnam under the worst conditions for five years until, on a work detail, he managed to kill his guard and escape. Sadly, COL Rowe was assassinated in February 1989 by communist insurgents while serving as chief of the Army division of the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group in the Philippines.* He was a great man and I am proud to have served under him.

Over at Slate, William Saletan is discussing the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammad was not subjected to any torture technique that U.S. military personnel are not routinely subjected to. The pain and discomfort Mohammad experienced was no worse than the pain and discomfort thousands of U.S. military personnel have experienced over the decades. Saletan, however, tells us that SERE training is akin to S&M but the same techniques used on al Qaeda constitute rape. Well.

Saletan argues that, since soldiers know it is training and terrorists know it isn?t, it is therefore psychologically far worse for terrorists. A psychologist points out that SERE students are being trained to defeat interrogation, not succumb. They also state that trainees know it will end on graduation day. They point out several ways that torture is psychologically easier on trainees that al Qaeda.

For the most part I don?t disagree. Knowing the guys pouring water on your face are fellow soldiers and trainers has to make it somewhat easier. He goes on to claim, however, that the most important difference is that students can quit if they so choose.

Fifth and most important, SERE is voluntary. ?Students can withdraw from training,? Ogrisseg noted. In a report issued four months ago, the Armed Services Committee added that in SERE, ?students are even given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop? any ordeal.

I disagree with this point. First and most obviously, the terrorists being interrogated can quit too. They can choose to start talking and the procedure will end. In fact, that is the very point of the exercise: talk and the water boarding will end. Terrorists, of course, don?t want to quit. I didn?t want to quit either.

As a matter of fact, SERE School is a very exclusive course. I went to great lengths to be allowed to apply for the course, to get accepted to the course and to pass the course. In the Army, voluntarily quitting a military schools is a very, very bad thing. Back in the 1980s when I served, quitting would get you what was called a ?lack of motivation discharge? from the school. Woe be to the soldier who returned to his unit with an LOM discharge.

First would come the written counseling statements for your permanent record. That alone might very well bar you from reenlistment effectively ending your military career.

Secondly, you could forget having any and all good things to happen to you and expect many bad things to start happening. Once you are an LOM you are permanently a ?shit bird? and shit birds get treated like, well, shit. You might never pass a field equipment inspection again causing ?remedial training? exercises with the rest of the shit birds on Saturday mornings. You could expect your name to come up for nasty extra duty assignments way more often than can be explained by random chance. Essentially, life in the Army sucks for an LOM. It sucks to be you if you are deemed a shit bird.

By far the worst result of quitting would be the loss of social stature among your fellow soldiers. You would be seen forever more as a ?non-hacker? who couldn?t be trusted when the shit gets deep. LOMs actually lose friends and are ostracized within their units. It is a special kind of hell that can make a soldier suffer in ways that are hard to explain and extremely hurtful. An LOM can change the trajectory of a young man?s life.

When I was subjected to the worst the trainers had to offer, I couldn?t quit. No way. Quitting would mean humiliation in front of my fellow soldiers: men from whom I wanted respect more than anyone else in the world. There was no way I could do the walk of shame into my unit headquarters carrying a lack of motivation discharge. I was a young man in my twenties and, at that point in my life, I am certain that I would have let them kill me before I would quit. Quitting was absolutely, positively out of the question. I have seen the same determination in hundreds of soldiers facing intense, harsh training.

The interrogations are no more physically painful for terrorists than for military trainees. The techniques are the same. You can argue, I suppose, that knowing that it is a training situation makes it easier on military trainees than it is on terrorist being interrogated. I do not believe, however, that for most military members who have been deemed proficient enough warriors to attend SERE training would find it any easier to quit than did Khalid Sheik Mohammad. At that time, at that age, I would have preferred death to failure. Quitting was a mortal sin that could not be contemplated. I didn?t quit. Mohammad did eventually quit.

I guess the final point I want to make from this former SERE Instructor?s perspective is this: I don?t really give a damn if KSM gets a little PSD if it saves American lives. If I could take harsh interrogation techniques, that pussy can too.

Maybe I am too dumb but what does this have to do with anything? Maybe I just read it wrong.:shrug:

 

[bleedingpurple]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ9-X26pbDU

 

[rusty]

Maybe I am too dumb but what does this have to do with anything? Maybe I just read it wrong.:shrug:

.
That were not the only ones doing the torturing.

 

[bleedingpurple]

.
That were not the only ones doing the torturing.

Yes I know that but does it say anything about how it does or doesn't work?

I guess on this subject I am hypocritical. I don't think torture would work all that great at times cause I think I would just tell them whatever they wanted to hear but at the same time if Osama and the know taliban were caught, then I could care less what happens to them. Could dice em into shark bait for all I care.

 

[Turfgrass]

Sorry Chad, I had no idea that you were just dead set against it. I thought you might think it was an alright strategy if you thought it would save lives. I?m sure we ask them politely what we want to know before they start with the rougher stuff.

The point of the article was that the techniques we use on our own troops are the same ones used on the bad guys. We know it works. (Even more so now)

Yeah, it is terrible reprehensible behavior and I wouldn?t want it done on me. I do feel that ?enhanced interrogations? are a form of physiological torture? no doubt about that. Nobody is the worse for wear, but I?m sure it might give you trouble sleeping for some time.

The enemy is doing things much worse than we are.

If ?enhanced interrogation? doesn?t work, and if the information is unreliable why is it done at all? The fact that the bad guys just tell us what we want to hear doesn?t sound right in my ear. How would the bad guys know what we want to hear?

Regardless, if the POTUS wants to use ?enhanced interrogation? on a select few, I say he should have the option, regardless of who occupies the office. But hey, some people feel that it was wrong that we murdered OBL. (Or is it UBL?)

I would point to the last few lines of the article: I don?t really give a damn if KSM gets a little PSD if it saves American lives. If I could take harsh interrogation techniques, that pussy can too.

Carry on.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Without reading a bunch of articles on subject-

I'm going to take a wild stab and go with-

If a person is trying to hide something- persuasive interrogation is more effective in obtaining said info than-
-you have the right to remain silent-
-100% of the time.

--anyone disagree :shrug:

 

[The Sponge]

Without reading a bunch of articles on subject-

:

Why doesn't this surprise me. You don't even read most of what u post.

 

[bleedingpurple]

I just found it ironic that he says the techniques do not work on him "he would rather die." He also suggests that it does not work on other American soldiers who he is with because no one wants to be a pussy, yet it does work on terrorists.

Seems like he contraindicated himself through the story.

It was like he confirmed that torture doesn't work. That is why I didn't understand his point.

 

[bleedingpurple]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/5481
8.html

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 5/12/11 6:43 AM EDT

Torture didn?t lead the United States to Osama bin Laden, and the mission shouldn?t be used to justify the country?s use of it in the past, argues Sen. John McCain.

Writing on Thursday?s Washington Post op-ed page, the Arizona Republican ? and himself a former prisoner of war ? says that ?enhanced interrogation techniques? like waterboarding have no place in U.S. treatment of prisoners of war. He also dismisses the claims some Republicans in Congress and former Bush administration officials have been making about the tough handling of detainees leading directly to bin Laden.

?I don?t mourn the loss of any terrorist?s life. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves,? McCain writes. ?Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us.?

The torture debate was reignited by news of the bin Laden mission.

Bush-era attorney general Michael Mukasey, for instance, wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal that alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ?broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding? and ?loosed a torrent of information?including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.?

But Mukasey?s conclusions are false, McCain says, citing information he says he got directly from CIA director Leon Panetta. ?The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times,? McCain says. Intelligence officials first learned the nickname of bin Laden?s courier ?Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti ? ?from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured.? And, he adds, ?None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed?s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in Al Qaeda.?

The waterboarding of Mohammed, in fact, yielded ?false and misleading information? about the courier, McCain says. The staff of the Senate intelligence committee has told him that the best information that led to bin Laden came through non-coercive means.

Some of McCain?s congressional colleagues are arguing otherwise. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said last week that people with ?first-hand information ? that people who were on the ground, people who are in a position to know? have told him that ?the initial information on the courier was obtained by waterboarding back in 2003.?

And Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary from 2001 to 2006, offered an enthusiastic defense of the harsh treatment of prisoners. ?I think that anyone who suggests that enhanced techniques ? let?s be blunt, waterboarding ? did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn?t facing the truth,? he said on Fox News.

To McCain, though, the lines are clear: ?Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops, who might someday be held captive? and stands in opposition to the American principle that ?an individual?s human rights [are] superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government.?

?Ultimately, this is more than a utilitarian debate,? he says. ?This is a moral debate. It is about who we are.?



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54818.html#ixzz1M9217Ebg

Well it seems as though we have a debate amongst republicans here. Who do we believe? Assuming the article has quoted the individuals correctly.

1. Of course the Bush administration is going to say waterboarding got the info. They have been in hot water about this and are going to try to cover their asses.

2. Mukaskey is quoted as saying Mohammed "broke like a dam." :mj07: He was water boarded 183 times. Real effective.

3. McCain says the water boarding lead to mis information but Rep Peter King says it lead to initial courier info in 2003. Yeah right 2003, it is 2011 now. You don't think if Bush had some of the courier info that he would of nabbed Laden by the time he was out of office. Laden was presumably still hiding in the mountains in 2003.

Who do you believe? The republicans who are in hot water about the torture or McCain who is going AGAINST FELLOW REPUBLICAN CLAIMS. Why would McCain lie? if water boarding was great, wouldn't you think McCain would be pumping his fist too about how the Bush administration obtained the info?

Yet we have an article posted in this thread about how him and his fellow soldiers would rather die
yet suggests that terrorists give in. 183 TIMES


This is where I am hypocritical though. I myself do not care how many times a POS like Mohammed gets water boarded but I just do not know how effective it is and if we are doing this to non confirmed terrorist then we are deeply fucked up.

 

[The Sponge]

The bottom line is that these neo-con chickenhawks have now set the standard for when our soldiers are captured.

 

[Trench]

Without reading a bunch of articles on subject-

I'm going to take a wild stab and go with-

--anyone disagree :shrug:

Nope. I agree.

That's pretty much your approach to all topics.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Why doesn't this surprise me. You don't even read most of what u post.

Don't have to read anything to figure such a crazy assertion.

Let me try to explain--
--being in vietnam/cambodia/laos and subject to possibilty of situation --not once did the thought of Kum Ba Ya approach if I was captured--but there was always thought of what amount of enhanced interrogation--as IMO everyone has some point.

Now let me try to put that it terms that pinkies as yourself can comprehend.

When you were little --which would be more apt to be effective way of keeping you in line--your father threatening to bust your butt when you got home or threatening to have "another" talk with you.

 

[StevieD]

Don't have to read anything to figure such a crazy assertion.

Let me try to explain--
--being in vietnam/cambodia/laos and subject to possibilty of situation --not once did the thought of Kum Ba Ya approach if I was captured--but there was always thought of what amount of enhanced interrogation--as IMO everyone has some point.

Now let me try to put that it terms that pinkies as yourself can comprehend.

When you were little --which would be more apt to be effective way of keeping you in line--your father threatening to bust your butt when you got home or threatening to have "another" talk with you.

I am not sure but I think this guy is calling an American Hero John McCain a "Pinkie."

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

no disrespect to Mac but he is prime example it does work--as I said above--everyone has a limit.

 

[Trench]

no disrespect to Mac but he is prime example it does work--as I said above--everyone has a limit.

OK Rambo, give us the names of some current or former high-ranking military officials that support torture, believe it actually produces intelligence and don't believe it puts our own troops at greater risk.

And neoconservative chickenhawk members of Congress or past administrations don't qualify.

opcorn2

This oughta be the shortest list in military history. :SIB