Inside the CIA’s black site torture room

If not now, when?

I know what I said here is extreme. But I'm genuinely curious. Where is the line? Or is there not one and it is never okay to truly challenge the status quo? Maybe you're supposed to write to your congressperson and then go back to your Netflix.

In the recent PBS Vietnam War documentary they show film footage of the US military tiger teams waterboarding an elderly Vietnamese villager (episode 8/9?). And on the other side the North Vietnamese tortured all the American POW's, and we heard from Hal Kushner directly and learned about what they did to McCain and others who survived to bear witness. But we expect more from our side, we don't expect to be the "baddies".

When we call it a war (on terror), we expand the limits on what some will justify. Having a war on an idea means there's essentially no end in sight.

But how many others were tortured in the same way that had no relevant information to give, because they were innocent?

The issue with torture is not that it doesn't work on the guilty ones. I'm sure it does on the vast majority of them. The issue is you will torture 9 out of 10 in order to finally land upon the 1 out of 10 that is guilty.

Aside:

There is a big controversy (in Germany and elsewhere) on how and when to compare the third reich and the GDR. Hubertus Knabe, the leader of the Hohenschönhausen memorial (Stasi jail, as you put it), equalizes them. He made quiet a few exhibitions (like "moral courage in Germany 1933-89) that way.

What happened was the war against reason. Having empirical knowledge about what works didn't count for squat with the people who were making those appointments. It might even have been a negative. The people who got ahead were the ones who could project the "real American tough guy" image, no matter how fake it was or what obvious psychopathic tendencies came attached to it.

Now for the really bad news. The same kind of people (if not worse) are in charge again, and they're focused on domestic "threats" instead of international ones.

That's not how the CIA uses torture though. The CIA uses it like an extreme version of good cop, bad cop - but where the bad cop beats you or waterboards you. For example, today you can sit and chat with our friendly investigators who will ask you questions, talk over your answers, work things through with you and try to find useful and verifiable information. If you're unwilling to cooperate with these guys, we can always chain you naked in a cold dark room for the next 16 hours.

I'm sure there are situations where torture would be an effective means of getting information. For example, if you were a member of a terror cell that had kidnapped a journalist and you were planning on beheading that journalist, and we were reasonably sure your email would include correspondence to your cohorts that might reveal where the journalist was being held - I'd bet I could get you to give up your email password by saying "I'm going to try and guess your password. Every time I get it wrong, I will burn you with this hot iron." That technique would likely get your password in a few minutes, compared to the days or months that would be required to get your friendship and trust, if that would be possible at all. Remember, the techniques Scharff used were used against Allied airmen. In other words, professional soldiers. The people being "interrogated" in American torture cells likely have a religious motivation against cooperation in addition to a political one.

Furthermore, Scharff also used the threat of violence - per wikipedia:

>Scharff described various experiences with new POW's (prisoners of war), outlining the procedure most of his fellow interrogators were instructed to use. Initially, the POW's fear and sense of disorientation, combined with isolation while not in interrogation, were exploited to gain as much initial biographical information as possible. A prisoner was frequently warned that, unless he could produce information beyond name, rank, and serial number, such as the name of his unit and airbase, the Luftwaffe would have no choice but to assume he was a spy and turn him over to the Gestapo for questioning. For Scharff, this technique apparently worked quite well

This is similar to the technique I described above. Torture, or the threat of it, is used as motivation to get people to cooperate - not to force them to reply to specific questions.

I think it's too easy to say "Not only is torture immoral, it also doesn't work." Common sense alone would suggest that torture will work in at least some cases (e.g. my email example). The practice of torture has many documented cases of success. A much harder, and more significant, moral question is - given that torture can be effective in some cases, should we practice it?

To me, it depends on the specific circumstances and the stakes involved. I tend to think our ongoing engagements in the Middle East are not justifiable or a good idea. I wouldn't use torture, not because it might not be effective, but because I believe we shouldn't be there doing anything in the first place.

and that's exactly the point.