Slashdot Mirror


Senate Report Says CIA Misled Government About Interrogation Methods

mrspoonsi sends this news from the Washington Post: "A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA misled the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques. The report, built around detailed chronologies of dozens of CIA detainees, documents a long-standing pattern of unsubstantiated claims as agency officials sought permission to use — and later tried to defend — excruciating interrogation methods that yielded little, if any, significant intelligence, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed the document. ... At the secret prison, Baluchi endured a regime that included being dunked in a tub filled with ice water. CIA interrogators forcibly kept his head under the water while he struggled to breathe and beat him repeatedly, hitting him with a truncheon-like object and smashing his head against a wall, officials said. As with Abu Zubaida and even Nashiri, officials said, CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating."

45 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. So Arrest Them by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's obvious they were assaulting people without cause, why haven't they been arrested, prosecuted and thrown in jail?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:So Arrest Them by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More than that, if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them, they have to have some consiquenses for it. Start jailing a whole bunch of people for purgery. Nothing major... Just what Martha Stewart did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    2. Re:So Arrest Them by rimwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive all the way to the Cheney and Bush. Arresting the lying CIA officials would entail carrying out a serious and rigorous investigation led by a competent Federal Prosecutor. The whole process was so muddied by politics, revenge and utter disregard for the principals and norms of war (all covered by international treats), but also a blatant disregard for the laws of the USA. Importantly one earliest actions of the Obama administration was to disallow and essentially censor the publication of all photos of torture and ill treatment that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that action Obama’s administration instead of cleaning house, made itself complicit in all the actions of torture and extra-judicial killings that occurred under the Bush administration. Of course extra-judicial killings are still occurring today under Obama with the executors being the remote pilot of the drones.

    3. Re:So Arrest Them by tqk · · Score: 2

      If it's obvious they were assaulting people without cause, why haven't they been arrested ...

      Why were they hired? Who hired them, who managed them, who laid down their ground rules? Who did their performance appraisals? Who signed their cheques?

      Those people can always find flunkies to do the work (need money feed family|patriotism|...). Go after "Those people."

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:So Arrest Them by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them

      Just strap the CIA director to a table before the congressional committee and pour water on his face until he tells the truth.

      What's good for the goose ....

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:So Arrest Them by Arker · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the same reason every attempt at investigating this at the time turned into career (if not literal) suicide and went nowhere. Because if you are going to arrest anyone, you have to investigate, and if you investigate, you have to follow leads, and if you follow leads, you will wind up in the 'Oval Office.'

      Which has enough juice to quash your investigation and make your life very uncomfortable for trying.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:So Arrest Them by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I will gladly contribute money to the election campaign of any otherwise-electable congressional candidate who makes this one of his or her campaign promises.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:So Arrest Them by marcgvky · · Score: 2
      "Obvious"... omg coolaid drinker. You have no idea about what your speak.

      You want better results? Hold "politicians" accountable for the act of entities over which they have oversight... then these people might act as if they are/were accountable. Otherwise these "hearings" are nothing more than a PR opportunity.

    8. Re:So Arrest Them by plopez · · Score: 2

      Can't get them for torture as they were enemy combatants. Can't get them for violating POW rights and policies as they were enemy combatants.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    9. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More than that, if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them, ...

      Which is the crux of the point. Congress does *not* want people to stop lying to them. It serves Congress' best interests to have the CIA, NSA, lobbyists, major corporate executives, etc to lie to them because it allows Congress to set the lie as a truth in the Congressional record. At the same time, it's the irrelevant and small that are attacked (Martha Stewart, steroids in baseball, etc) because it's the low level fodder that a few Congressmen can get behind as lamenting while pretending the system they're part and parcel of is good and acceptable.

      Because last I checked, neither the NSA nor the CIA fall under the purview of the Constitution* and their blackhole budgets seem an obvious target for defunding, regardless of how honest and good they were. I mean, look at how much effort is meant to cripple Medicare, Welfare, Social Security, etc. Rampant fraud and abuse? Sure, that's the calling card of the NSA/CIA. But at least they feed people, treat them of injury, and provide them shelter and necessary living expenses when old. Nope, the NSA/CIA is the killing foreigner business.

      Apples and oranges. Good defense is a good offense, which is why I always random groin kick strangers. Please excuse me if my mumbling of incoherent nonsense somehow makes sense to you and seems justifiable. Because we all know the only ones keep the nukes out of the US are the NSA/CIA...except the ones we have...and that none of the other major powers really want to actually use a nuke and face retribution...and all the smaller groups don't have the resources to build a nuke from scratch..and none of the major powers want to hand over nukes to nut jobs because they're just as likely to be a target. Not to mention that eventually a nuke is going to be stolen/built and used (well, presuming we don't kill ourselves off some other way) and we're just going to have to life with the fact that the genie is really out of the bottle. Nope, the CIA/NSA aren't anti-genies. They're just assholes.

      *Most of their actions if part of the military amount to continuous acts of war against other nations, which clearly violation Congress' unique power to declare war and really gives plenty of justification for just about *everyone*, including terrorists, to launch attacks against the US. Outside that scope, the major mechanism for international actions of the sort the NSA and CIA engage in would fall under scope of "Letters of Marque", but that too really wouldn't apply as part of the US government and would be of an on-going basis if done right to be handed out to individuals which Congress itself is unwilling to invest the time into. It's easier to bitch and moan a lot and not do anything real.

    10. Re:So Arrest Them by rvw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them

      Just strap the CIA director to a table before the congressional committee and pour water on his face until he tells the truth.

      What's good for the goose ....

      This is exactly what they want! If you do this, you follow their frame, their method, and you (or congress) approve of it. If congress approves of this, they don't have to hide it anymore. Mission accomplished! And thanks for your helpful suggestion!

    11. Re:So Arrest Them by cffrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can't get them for torture as they were enemy combatants. Can't get them for violating POW rights and policies as they were enemy combatants.

      The US government's designation/use of this term "enemy combatant" to refer to POWs — POWs generally being captured "enemies" engaged in "combat" — for the purpose of skirting international law — is tantamount to my getting out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge I wasn't speeding, but engaging in "enhanced-velocity travel" or some such bullshit. If we (as a supposed "nation of laws") are to accept this ridiculous, ongoing wordplay, we may as well resign ourselves to fully embracing the concept of a US government-produced "American Newspeak" vocabulary, and the degradation of our ability to engage in meaningful dialog that such acceptance would entail.

      I'd be interested to see a list of the "American Newspeak" euphemisms coined for various war crimes and Constitutional violations over the years, categorized by US presidents' administrations. I'm willing to bet that this American Newspeak's vocabulary size has been expanding at an increasing rate during the past few administrations, much like we've witnessed the accelerated expansion of other facets of a totalitarian police state: mass surveillance; militarized police forces; world-record incarcerations (and the rise of the private prison industry that lobbies for draconian laws and sentences (and increasing the slave-labor workforce beyond pre-Civil War numbers); persecution/prosecution of whistle-blowers; over-classification of government documents (often to hide unconstitutional activities and war crimes); government infiltration of peaceful/law-abiding groups; mass arrests at peaceful protests; mass deportations (without regard for the families shattered); undermining the critical function of the free press; and so on...

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    12. Re:So Arrest Them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Start jailing a whole bunch of people for purgery.

      Which is...what exactly? It sounds like criminal misuse of prescription laxatives. I didn't know that was a major social issue these days.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:So Arrest Them by peragrin · · Score: 2

      ah but you are forgetting one very important fact. Countries treat each other like 7-10 years at recess treat each other. Look at my shiny toy, no give me that, don't pull my hair I am warring you, give me your money, eww billy's got cooties, etc.

      watch the UN some day and replace all the adults with children. the actions are so close it isn't funny but turns into a sad comedy.

      until countries grow up and start acting like adults none of this will improve.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:So Arrest Them by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      This committee is acting like they were never informed of the "enhanced interrogation technique" program from the get-go. It's total horseshit. This committee knew it was happening, and they gave their approval right up until the New York Times (or whoever) published the first public reports of it.

      Then come the public hearings where they excoriate CIA lawyers rather than the senate confirmed administrators and directors. Oh, and when they purposefully ask questions with classified answers in open hearings, and the answer given is "we can cover than in the closed hearing, as it pertains to classified information"; guess who goes to attend an ice cream social at the White House rather than attend the closed hearing to get their answers? The same fucking assholes that are now publishing reports and covering up their involvement and approval. Yes, that actually happened.

      This is nothing but politicians doing what politicians do best - making sure that when the music stops, they're sitting in an over-stuffed wing-back chair; and some guy who was following orders that had legal findings backing them up from the fucking JUSTICE DEPARTMENT gets his career ruined, and possibly goes to jail.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re:So Arrest Them by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have made the open offer before that anyone who thinks waterboarding isn't torture is welcome to explain to me why that is, as long as they can do it while being waterboarded until I am satisfied with what they are saying is the truth.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    16. Re:So Arrest Them by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Orwell wrote an essay about this mangling of language, Politics and the English Language.

      Quoth,

      In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    17. Re:So Arrest Them by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Let's see: Jesse Ventura, a Navy SEAL, was waterboarded, and says it's definitely torture. Apparently the SEALs used to use waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training, but stopped as the inability of anyone to tolerate it was damaging morale. The linked article says the mean-time-to-failure was 14 seconds.

      Hitchens was waterboarded, and said it's definitely torture.

      Rather uniquely, Oliver North claims to have been waterboarded and says it's not torture. Personally I'd like him to spend a few seconds at the hands of the guys Hitchens went to. I suspect he'd change his mind rather quickly.

      Sean Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded, but backed-out. He maintains it's not torture, and points to North.

  2. Sadists, enabled by our government.... by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Enabled: Have you missed the part where no one ever is held responsible?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Our government, enabled by the voters

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pfft the committee doesn't care about the lying, that goes without mentioning. The report is just retaliation for being spied on. Tit for tat. Nothing will come of it. Yes, we are the enablers.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. That's a shocker by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This shakes my world view to its very core.

    Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:That's a shocker by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon into a brick wall.

      FTFY.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:That's a shocker by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon that was loaded with 3-inch nails, and then with them, into a brick wall.

      FTFY

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:That's a shocker by stackOVFL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon that was loaded with 3-inch nails, and then with them, into a brick wall and then slid from the brick wall into a vat of boiling acid.

      FTFY.

  4. WaPo still won't use word "torture" by billstewart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cowards. They're not willing to call it what it is, because they're still the Establishment Media, and don't want to lose access to the government people who are their big information sources.

    At least National Public Radio has the excuse that they're directly funded by the government (and "viewers like you", and grants from Exxon, Archer Daniels Midland, some recent movie, etc.) - it was 10 years after Gitmo before I first heard them use the T-word in a news story; before that it had only been guests on Terry Gross's interview shows (and Terry herself.)

    Don't let the right-wingers tell you that either of these are "liberal" media.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wish I had mod points. This was the first thing I noticed as well. Lots of mentions of "harsh treatment" or "excruciating interrogation methods" and yet they can never bring themselves to admit that it was torture. The closest they come is in saying "methods that Obama and others later labeled torture."

    2. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by number6x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also the 'T' word: Terrorism.

      The point of the torure and the extra judicial imprisonment beyond the norms of warfare is to spread terror and fear in those who are perceived as enemies. In other words, State Sponsored Terrorism.

      It does not keep anyone safe. It creates and breeds more hatred and desire for revenge. It isolates the US from allies. It does the exact opposite of ending terroism. Torture is like throwing gasoline on the bonfire of terrorism.

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    3. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read about how our soldiers where treated in North Korea

      I have. You should as well. You will learn where the USA learned the waterboarding torture technique from.

    4. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does not keep anyone safe. It creates and breeds more hatred and desire for revenge. It isolates the US from allies. It does the exact opposite of ending terroism. Torture is like throwing gasoline on the bonfire of terrorism.

      This.

      Something else I find truly and jaw-droppingly shocking is that all the discussion of terrorism remains selectively detached from our own foreign policies. So on the one hand we always hear about terrorism shaping foreign policy, but never about foreign policy shaping terrorism.

      "They" don't hate us because of our freedom. And with the possible exception of a very small fraction of true believers, they don't hate us for not being Muslims. Most of them hate us because we've been overthrowing their democratic governments and propping up the brutal dictators in their countries.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    5. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

      Are you saying that we should calibrate our sense of right and wrong using the worst excesses of our adversaries as baseline? That will predictably turn into a race to the bottom with nothing but losers in the end. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (Ghandi)

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    6. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but evil and greed know no borders. The US's School of the Americas worked diligently to educate others in torture methods they discovered themselves.

      Do not be distracted by the wickedly deformed path that evil takes, for any can use the architecture of aggression for their own twisted ends.

  5. Re:Ask them about their Medical Torture Program!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ask them about their Medical Torture Program!!!!!!

    Dear CIA:

    What is your opinion of Obamacare?

    signed,
    A Concerned Voter

  6. [sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc] by sehlat · · Score: 2

    CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

    If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate? At least keeping silent (or lying in ways not easily checked) can be a form of revenge.

  7. It's a "boys club" by no-body · · Score: 3, Insightful

    with people totally disconnected from the consequences of their actions, driven by some idea and illusion in their head doing the "right thing", not to use he term "pervert", which in fact this is coming from.....

  8. Yet another front which the terrorists won. by RJFerret · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Due to our own actions, the terrorists won yet another round...not a cry I'd championed previously.

    The future, scratch that, the present is looking really bleak now that the average civilian can expect to be spied upon, searches and home invasions are being done without cause, due process is ignored, travel is restricted, "Homeland Security" are targeting civilians for desiring sexual contact with minors, and those declared enemies of the state are outright tortured, everything that was considered "evil" about the opposition when I was a child (be it the Third Reich or the Soviet Union) is currently taking place in the United States.

    The only thing left is to disarm the populace to prevent revolt, and institute concentration or labor camps.

    I never imagined I'd grow up to be embarrassed by my government and everything it stands for. Is fear next?

  9. Hypocracy by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    We would have to start with Bush and Cheney and the chain of command that obeyed orders. The proper charge might be murder as some of the people died of the torture that was inflicted upon them. Just as we executed German and Japanese war criminals we need to do the same with American officials. Naturally the low ranked guards were the scapegoats and they could not have said no as easily as those above them in the chain of command. Further we turned prisoners over to other nations with full knowledge that unlimited horrors including death would be applied to some of our prisoners. Use the same paint brush that the "too big to fail" jerks received. We are providing absolute proof that American values are a fraud and a falsehood displayed to the entire world including our own citizens. It is a matter of class and race. Certain people are exempt from all law in the US. Bush is one of them. I'm getting old and with luck I will not be alive to see the consequences when the public finally goes into rebellion or supports a foreign power invading this nation. I do think we are building towards an awful rebellion and chaos.

    1. Re:Hypocracy by plopez · · Score: 2

      I would start with us. Through action or inaction we got the government we deserved.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  10. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, just to play devil's (!!!) advocate, because you don't *know* Baluchi is cooperating as fully as he might be.

    Ammar Al-Baluchi was unquestionably involved with moving money and goods around for Al Qaeda and was clearly involved with helping many of the 9/11 hijackers. Although that does not necessarily mean he was an active *member* of Al Qaeda or knew exactly what the 9/11 hijackers were up to, he'd have to be remarkably incurious not to know something was up. And he was captured with correspondence that was destined for Osama bin Laden.

    So this is a person who, even if he had no specific knowledge of imminent attacks, knows a lot of useful things. But that actually poses a challenge for interrogators. He can give them an impressive amount of useful stuff while holding back even *more* useful stuff.

    But one thing is certain: if he *had* known more important stuff, it didn't come out under torture. Nor did torture produce *anything* useful that couldn't be produced using different techniques. And now Americans -- servicemen, agents, and innocent bystandanders -- face an increased threat of torture throughout the world at the hands of people who figure if America does it, Americans should get a taste of it too.

    It's important not to be too glib about dismissing torture, because in the future we're going to find ourselves in situations where it seems like a pretty good idea. And the person we're thinking of torturing may be a very bad person -- I don't think it's unreasonable to characterize Al-Baruchi's crimes as "heinous". But if ever torture was going to break the back of an enemy it would have done so with al Qaeda after 9/11.

    Well, we tried it and it didn't work. What *did* work was ordinary interrogation and intelligence tradecraft. Which should come as no surprise. We spent the 19th and 20th C perfecting those approaches, and the idea that we could do better by tearing a page out of the medieval playbook should, in hindsight, seem ridiculous.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    And then you end up with cops with martyr complexes willing to go to jail for two years to nail a criminal without due process. It allows for a perverse interest to break the law to uphold the law. Even if the punishment is the same as the criminal receives (cop gets death sentence for breaking due process in mass-murder case), there are some who would do it. Better to disallow the evidence.

  12. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by lonOtter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia.

    You are not referring to fundamental freedoms. If you are, do not say "we." I am not willing to sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety; that just leads to things such as the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, etc. Even if those things were effective, they would still be absolutely intolerable.

    That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered.

    It *is* the point. If we want to make it less desirable for the government to break the law, their ability to use illegal evidence must be severely curtailed. Merely punishing them will not prevent the problem as much as is necessary. It's better that many guilty people get away than one innocent person be harassed by the government illegally.

    Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive.

    I'm all for defending individual liberties, and that's why I think illegal evidence should be tossed. This is one aspect of our system that I have no problem with.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  13. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't so much a war on terror; its a war OF terror. Where the americans arrest, torture and release their possible enemies.

  14. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we allow prosecutions to succeed on the strength of illegal evidence, we allow a perverse incentive to continue gathering evidence illegally. It has to be perfectly clear that illegally obtained evidence might as well not exist. Otherwise we end up at a point where your rights get violated at the first whiff of suspicion (however unfounded) and nobody ever pays because it never goes to trial.

    Add in that convicting a cop will require at least proof beyond reasonable doubt (presuming the prosecutor doesn't just find an excuse not to pursue the matter). In practice, the police still (for reasons that escape me) still get an extra benefit of the doubt. Because of that, we would see abuses run rampant with practically no convictions.

    Public trust of the courts, prosecutors, and cops is already falling fast, If we start letting them profit from criminal activity, it will get worse fast.

    If you don't want to see murderers go free, hold the police's feet to the fire. If they never violate people's rights, nobody will ever go free because of thrown out evidence.

    In cases where a cop plants evidence, he absolutely should face whatever sentence the defendant would get.

  15. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We know the conundrum since 350 years, it's written down in Friedrich Spee's "Cautio Criminalis". Torture doesn't yield reliable results, if any. Because even if someone in the know might reveal something useful under torture, someone who isn't, won't, but they might just say anything, if true or not. And if you then, based on those confessions of unclear truth, arrest the next one, what will his interrogation yield? And someone in the know, who knows the unreliability of confessions under torture, might even blatantly lie to the interrogators, causing them to go after false leads and thus winning time for his cause, while someone innocent is taken into custody and tortured without any chance to ever produce something of use for the interrogators. All you get is a huge bunch of white (actually bloodish red) noise, and everthing possibly useful is drowned into lots of worthless or outright false statements.

    Torture only works for confessions of things you already knew for sure. Then you can force someone to give up and confess. But as an investigative method, it is just unproductive. If you don't know what the suspect knows, how can you tell if he reveals something of value? And how many not-so-bad guys came under torture because of misleading statements, produced more misleading statements (as they didn't know shit), but when they were released they bore a grudge against their torturers and had firsthand knowledge of their structure, mentality, inner workings and locations?

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*