
How a modest contract morphed into the CIA’s brutal interrogation program - petethomas
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/13/how-a-modest-contract-for-applied-research-morphed-into-the-cias-brutal-interrogation-program/
======
ansible
So here's what I don't get. If we think that torturing people may be an
effective way of obtaining information, then why don't we try it under
controlled conditions?

We train a dozen of our agents in the normal fashion, and give them seemingly
important secrets. Send them off to a foreign country to carry out a mission.
Then stage a kidnapping with people that appear to be working for an enemy
(IS, whoever).

Then actually torture the agents. For real. We know what information they
have, so we can see what information they'll actually give up. Then we can see
which techniques are most efficient and effective. If they give up the name of
the fellow operative, "capture" that operative, and show the agent the
consequences.

That is science.

What? You say you have ethical concerns? How could we possibly do this to our
own people?

What's the difference? We have willingly sacrificed the health and lives of
tens of thousands of our own citizens already during the War on Terror. What's
another couple dozen?

If the government isn't willing to torture our own people, and publish the
results... then maybe the government shouldn't be torturing anyone at all.

~~~
ljf
Similar to: [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-
deter...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-deterrence/)

On the 'nuclear codes' to launch an attack:

 _My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little
capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer.
The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he
accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear
weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own
hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but
tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death
is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality
brought home.

When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, “My God, that’s
terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He
might never push the button.“_

~~~
kstenerud
Sorry, but if I were dealing with a nuclear launch scenario, one innocent life
would not sway me at all.

~~~
ljf
You sound like President material then ;)

------
chme
Don't worry, under Trump these long missed 'interrogation methods' will come
back. (If you belief they stopped)

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/29/donald-
trump-istanbul-airport-attack-hillary-clinton/86504460/)

People never learn...

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Just a thought question for you: If there was a terrorist attack on US soil
and polling showed a majority of people wanted to water board suspected
terrorists, how convinced are you that Hillary Clinton would take a moral
stand against resuming water boarding? My guess based on her past is that she
would go with what the polls told her. In addition, her decision would receive
a whole lot less media scrutiny than if Trump tried to do it. In fact, I could
even see some media spinning that as a good thing for her: "Clinton shows that
women are not squeamish about doing what is necessary to keep us safe".

~~~
mseebach
> _“As to waterboarding, you know, our country’s most experienced and bravest
> military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put
> our own soldiers and increasingly our own civilians at risk,” Clinton said.

Rather, she said, “We do have to give law enforcement and intelligence
professionals all the tools they need to do the job to keep America safe and
they don’t need to resort to torture, but they are going to need more help.”_

This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a
practical and tactical stand. So no, judging from that quote, all it would
take is for someone "experienced and brave" to tell her it would be effective
an a tool they need, and she's on board (as far as principles and morals go,
at least).

[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-
respo...](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-response)

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a
> practical and tactical stand.

There's a question here of whether the position was articulated because it is
_the main reason she opposes torture_ , or whether it is because it _rebuts
the main reason supporters of torture advocate that, morality aside, it must
be accepted_.

Politically, there is utility to highlighting arguments which demonstrate
that, _even_ accepting your opponent's decision criteria, _your_ policy is the
correct one. So even if you believe it is always morally wrong to torture
regardless of utility, it is _useful_ (if you can defend it) to argue that
torture is known to not be useful _if_ the main reason your opponents argue
for it is its utility.

~~~
mseebach
Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders (I haven't checked,
but I would assume that he does not mince his words in moral condemnation of
torture), so that doesn't really hold up.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Her opponent at the time of that quote was Bernie Sanders

The opposition _on that issue_ was not. Candidates in a primary campaign
making statements designed to counter positions of potential (or known)
general election opponents (or positions associated with the opposing major
party, even if not actually embraced by any particular candidate of that party
for the particular office in question) isn't an uncommon thing.

Politicians may, all too often, be shortsighted, but ones with even modest
amounts of proficiency at campaigning aren't so much so that they can't think
in terms of the broader campaign for an office (and even setting the ground
for success in that office) when competing in a primary campaign.

------
Aelinsaar
Torture is almost always something that operates by slowly creeping, and
before you know it your organization is in up to its neck.

