• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CIA interrogations informed by bad science

FireGarden

Philosopher
FireGarden
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,047
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Wolfman said:
Putting "CIA" and "informed" together in the same sentence just seems rather...wrong.
Click to expand...

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
 
McHrozni said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
“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!”
 
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

McHrozni
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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 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 pointing out how regular interrogation techniques and building up rapport work better.
 
Last edited:
Fishstick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

McHrozni
 
Fishstick,
I was going to mention the same thing.

The title of this article is a bit sensationalist:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...y-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.
 
Last edited:
FireGarden said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Torture is a form of terrorism.

It also creates "terrorists", a vital component of the the Anglo/US Energy wars.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Whiplash said:
I'm surprised you could so easily attribute malice and evil to the man.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom