NationStates Jolt Archive

This should knock down any last remaining arguments for the use of torture at Gitmo - they're using techniques developed by the Chinese to gain false confessions, and which were originally described in a USAF report as torture.

China inspired interrogations at Guantánamo
By Scott Shane
Published: July 2, 2008

WASHINGTON: The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base atGuantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02detain.php

*Vehemently disagrees with pretty much everything about Guantanamo bay. Assume 5 paragraphs of objections*

That should cover everything without rehashing all the issues.

Well, gee, neocons trying their best to turn the US into a dictatorship. In other news, bears shit in the wood. For all the Portuguese speakers out there, ursos cagam no mato.

Well, do they work?

Generally, the kind of people that use torture don't exactly care whether the confession is true or not...all they care is that they get it. That certainly doesn't make it right, but I think it illustrates pretty clearly the mindset of torture across ideologies and cultures. Of course, I've always felt that it suggests a kind of desperation more than anything...perhaps the world has done too good a job defeating the real threat of terrorism in the past seven years (let alone previous decades) leaving those in power little else to do but chase phantoms and attempt vainly to reinforce their decaying base with fear.

Who cares if the confessions maybe false. With torture they can GITMO of them! get it? git-mo?

*cricket, cricket*

Who cares if the confessions maybe false. With torture they can GITMO of them! get it? git-mo?

*cricket, cricket*

*Tortures the crickets*

Well, do they work?

Depends on how you define the results... If by work you mean "produce false confessions", yes, they work. If by work you mean "produce the intended results", then no, they don't for two reasons.

First, the intended result tn the case of their original usage was to produce what's now known as "brainwashing".

By 1951 the CCF decided that there was propaganda value in a POW system. The Chinese developed eight permanent POW camps that stretched over a 50-mile sector in North Korea along the Yalu River. Survivors of the "Valleys" were brought in, and Camp 5 at Pyoktong became the main camp and headquarters for the Chinese POW command. The CCF segregated the POWs according to rank, race and nationality and created interrogation and indoctrination programs. With their indoctrination program, the CCF tested each prisoner's faith in the democratic process, but the Chinese sought publicity more than converts to communism. Daily propaganda lectures and broadcasts that attacked capitalist society were conducted, and the CCF persuaded some POWs to sign peace petitions and make pro-communist statements. The term "brainwashing" obtained notoriety at this time and caused concern to American authorities. Brainwashing was defined as an intense and prolonged psychological process designed to erase an individual's past beliefs and to substitute new ones. Even though some American POWs collaborated with their captors, most of them did so for personal convenience. No confirmed cases of brainwashing came out of the Korean War.

Secondly, their current use is to produce actionable intelligence. False information is worse than no information in this case.

Generally, the kind of people that use torture don't exactly care whether the confession is true or not...all they care is that they get it. That certainly doesn't make it right, but I think it illustrates pretty clearly the mindset of torture across ideologies and cultures. Of course, I've always felt that it suggests a kind of desperation more than anything...

Indeed.

perhaps the world has done too good a job defeating the real threat of terrorism in the past seven years (let alone previous decades) leaving those in power little else to do but chase phantoms and attempt vainly to reinforce their decaying base with fear.

Hmmm... looking at the current state of the world, you'd have to have a rather odd definition of "good job" to make that statement.

Who cares if the confessions maybe false. With torture they can GITMO of them! get it? git-mo?

*cricket, cricket*

Ohhh... I foresee a promising career for you as a US interrogator...

So what if the Communists used them, isn't that class struggle?

wherever they came from, the're certainly not bennifitting anyone or anything, other them maybe rumsfield and cheney's wet dreams.

they might be a fitting and appropriate fate for the currently in office, and their chronie war criminals who implimented them though.

=^^=
.../\...

So what if the Communists used them, isn't that class struggle?
How is torture class struggle? You mean if communist interrogators torture middle-class POWs? And what do you mean by "So what"? Does that mean you wouldn't mind being tortured?

This should knock down any last remaining arguments for the use of torture at Gitmo - they're using techniques developed by the Chinese to gain false confessions, and which were originally described in a USAF report as torture.



http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02detain.php
If pointing out that Japanese soldiers were executed for doing similar things to American soldiers during Word War II couldn't manage to convince, this won't either.

If pointing out that Japanese soldiers were executed for doing similar things to American soldiers during Word War II couldn't manage to convince, this won't either.

true enough, though the main point is still valid, and even more to the point, that they were used to obtain FALSE confessions!

that's what people who still think there's some excuse for it, something to be gained by it, need to get through their thick heads.

=^^=
.../\...

true enough, though the main point is still valid, and even more to the point, that they were used to obtain FALSE confessions!

that's what people who still think there's some excuse for it, something to be gained by it, need to get through their thick heads.

=^^=
.../\...

Well the likes of DK/Hotwife/Whispering Legs don't really care about niggly little things like truth, ethics or even justice after all. All they want to do is fulfill their little blood soaked dreams of mass murder, and if a religious/ethnic group can be fed into their bloodlust, what's a little sacrifice of law, justice and humanity?

true enough, though the main point is still valid, and even more to the point, that they were used to obtain FALSE confessions!

that's what people who still think there's some excuse for it, something to be gained by it, need to get through their thick heads.

Exactly so.

This should knock down any last remaining arguments for the use of torture at Gitmo - they're using techniques developed by the Chinese to gain false confessions, and which were originally described in a USAF report as torture.



http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02detain.php

Some of them must have worked, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave up his entire network of guys.

His confession was remarkably accurate. So was bin al-Sheib's talking.

While it's very likely that many are false or inaccurate, they do check on what's said to see if it's reliable. Even a statement given willingly should be checked for accuracy. And, while useless for a court proceeding, it's still useful for intelligence work.

Even if 1 in 10 is accurate, that's a far cry from having zero information. We would never have cracked KSM's network without him talking.

Even if 1 in 10 is accurate, that's a far cry from having zero information. We would never have cracked KSM's network without him talking.

And you'd have gotten him to talk that much earlier, ASSUMING this interrogation was via torture, which you have provided no source of, if other techniques were used, and that's not taking into account the utter immorality of torture.

So, once again, you have no point.

So what if the Communists used them, isn't that class struggle?

Andaras, sorry to burst your bubble, but YOU'RE NOT A COMMUNIST!

That's right, you're not a communist any more than an embryo is a capitalist. Because you don't KNOW about the system, and it shows whenever you claim that communism is about torturing people, denying them rights, and so on, all the while supporting it. I don't know and I don't care if you use this to troll, to shock your parents or what, but if you want to be an actual communist, begin by reading Das Kapital and other books, lest you be forever perceived as someone talking out of their behind. And kindly tell me how many positive mentions are there to gulags, wanton wars, torture and other such things in Das Kapital. My guess is the average number between 1 and -1.

Some of them must have worked, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave up his entire network of guys.

His confession was remarkably accurate. So was bin al-Sheib's talking.
Really? He gave up his entire network? Their confessions were accurate? Confessions about what? Accurate in what way? Because apparently I missed the news reports you saw in which whole passles of terrorists were arrested on solid charges. All the reports I've seen have said that they talked a lot but so far nothing they've said has panned out to anything important or real. So how is it that you know otherwise? What information do you have access to that other regular citizens don't?

While it's very likely that many are false or inaccurate, they do check on what's said to see if it's reliable. Even a statement given willingly should be checked for accuracy. And, while useless for a court proceeding, it's still useful for intelligence work.
Useful for intelligence work. In what way, since, according to you, the intelligence officers are going to have to do get the same information by non-torture means to make sure its accurate anyway? Sounds like nothing but a time-wasting redundancy of effort to me, spending time and resources on techniques that you know you can't act on.

Even if 1 in 10 is accurate, that's a far cry from having zero information. We would never have cracked KSM's network without him talking.
You have yet to convince me that any networks have been cracked. What makes you think cracking has been accomplished?

Some of them must have worked, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave up his entire network of guys.

His confession was remarkably accurate. So was bin al-Sheib's talking.

While it's very likely that many are false or inaccurate, they do check on what's said to see if it's reliable. Even a statement given willingly should be checked for accuracy. And, while useless for a court proceeding, it's still useful for intelligence work.

Even if 1 in 10 is accurate, that's a far cry from having zero information. We would never have cracked KSM's network without him talking.

I knew if I skipped to page 2 it would be easy to find people still defending this.

s'all good, I mean I love living in a slowly building police state...isn't torture just a wonderful idea, maybe we should just start to imprison all the muslims on the basis that after interrigation they would confess any crime we want them to confess...hell why not just round them all up and stick 'em in some camps...ya know consentrate their locations...yep gotta love it

I agree with Lord Tothe.

You are saying thant "the military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure.""

We all have to remember that some tabloids are sensacionalist just to get our attention so we can buy their papers, watch their programs (raitings), and convence us the something terrible is happening out somewhere else.

You also said "What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."

Have you think that people tend to exagerate their suffering to create more conflicts? I am not saying that they didn't suffer, but their government and themselves always try to get more out of any circumstances.

And you said "The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base atGuantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency." Interrogatrions are important to know about the enemy, who is going to spil the soup without having to be extreme? I know it sounds terrible but some times things are necesary for the good of the human kind.

So, Once Again, You Have No Point.

Qft

So what if the Communists used them, isn't that class struggle?

Isn't everything you say just a result of the bouregois capitalist oppression of the working class?

Isn't everything you say just a result of the bouregois capitalist oppression of the working class?

Oppression in the form of exclusion from sexual recreative practices with the bourgois of the opposite gender...

Some of them must have worked, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave up his entire network of guys.
Khalid did not give anything, as long as he was under torture. The story is quite the opposite of what you are telling.

Khalid did not give anything, as long as he was under torture. The story is quite the opposite of what you are telling.

He refused to talk at all up until then. After the waterboarding, he assented to talk to an interrogator. He then told the interrogator everything.

They didn't have to do it twice.

It worked. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said a word.

He refused to talk at all up until then. After the waterboarding, he assented to talk to an interrogator. He then told the interrogator everything.

They didn't have to do it twice.

It worked. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said a word.

And as usual you don't have any proof, right? It's not like the little thing known as "truth" has any worth for you amirite :rolleyes:

The problem with this is you end up with subjects telling you what you want to hear - Iraq's mixed up w/ al Qaida, for example - instead of what's true.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

With examples like that, plus the results the ChiComs produced, and your utter lack of evidence to support your case Hotwife/Eve/DK/Sierra/WL/Legion, and I do not expect you to produce any given your record, claiming these techniques produced actionable intelligence in the case of KSM serves only to cast doubt on anything he's said.

Even the CIA even says he was making shit up just to get through the torture:

A CIA official declined to analyze Mohammed's statements.

One official cautioned that many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were "white noise" _ designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501478_2.html

He refused to talk at all up until then. After the waterboarding, he assented to talk to an interrogator. He then told the interrogator everything.

They didn't have to do it twice.

It worked. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said a word.

No source, no proof that it wouldn't have been easier another way, no nothing.

Not even an argument that pertains to the morals of it.

You poor thing.

He refused to talk at all up until then. After the waterboarding, he assented to talk to an interrogator. He then told the interrogator everything.

They didn't have to do it twice.

It worked. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said a word.

The problem is it didn't work, as I just showed above. The subjects these techniques were applied to told the CIA what they wanted to hear in order to make them stop. This contributed to what may well be the biggest FP blunder in US history.

No source, no proof that it wouldn't have been easier another way, no nothing.

Not even an argument that pertains to the morals of it.

You poor thing.

Even worse, his argument that it contributed to US security has been shown to have done the opposite.

even Worse, His Argument That It Contributed To Us Security Has Been Shown To Have Done The Opposite.

他 の ニュース: くま は 森林 で 排便する.

Even worse, his argument that it contributed to US security has been shown to have done the opposite.

True. IIRC, he was fooled into believing he was with friends...while under influence of drugs and that's when they got useful info out of him.

When discussing torture, logical argument is the first victim.

This is why the original post is meaningless. The objectives of Chinese interrogators are not necessarily those of American interrogaters, even if some of the methods are similar.

One is irrelevant to the other. It is like saying, since I drove a Volkswagen to the beach, you, obviously also driving a Volkswagen, must also be trying to get to the beach.

Second, there is a long history of people making claims, and claiming that somehow the claim "proves" something. Not at all. It is a counterclaim. Nothing more.

Third, outside of a few rarified circles, there is almost no knowledge about how torture and milder forms of coercive interrogation are actually used (A Guide: if a poli-sci major in California will do it to himself/herself as part of a protest, its not torture. If even a hard core anarchist protester wouldn't even think doing it to himself, it's torture. In between is gray area.).

So, to clarify a few things, without getting into the morality:

1) Most torturers are inept tools of dictatorships. The reason torture fails is because the torturer is inept, not because torture itself is does not produce results when used correctly. These same regimes also have inept economists, inept judges, and inept buildings inspectors. The fact that a building inspector is inept may be why the building collapsed- don't jump to the conclusion the "concrete doesn't really work".

2) Torture, when used by an interrogator that is not inept, is so effective that western nations assume that any information will be compromised within 48 hours. So western generals, if one of their men is captured by an enemy known to use torture (ie, any enemy a western nation might be up against) assume that whatever that man knew, the enemy will know.

3) Torture, when used by an interrogator that is not inept, is only one of a variety of techniques of gathering information. It is never relied on alone.

4) The idea that the prisoner will just tell the interrogator what he wants to hear is part myth, part true. A smart interrogator wants to hear the truth, and the prisoner will tell the truth.

How? Here's what a smart interrogator (assuming he is using torture) will do: The first questions will be (mostly) things that his intelligence service has already learned. He asks these questions because he knows the answer, and he WANTS the prisoner to lie. When the prisoner lies, he is tortured. If he is Gitmo, he might be waterboarded, but if he is unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of real torturers, he learns the real horror. He gets Tortured. Fingers are removed, genitals are burned, true horror is inflicted.

Was this all for fun, torturing a prisoner for lieing about something you already knew the answer to? Not at all. Enter Pavlov, stage left. The prisoner is being conditioned not to lie. Very soon, resistance breaks down. The prisoner internalizes a pathological fear of telling lies. The interrogator will detect this. It is then that he moves on, first to questions about which he has general knowledge, and then into the complete unknown. Now and then, to test, he throws in questions he knows the answer to.

The smart, professional interrogator gathers up as much trivial detail as he can before beginning the session, and gathers it from every source he can. If he has little to go on he may invent stupid sounding questions- but they are not stupid, they are designed to provoke lies, so the conditioning can begin.

You see, up against a pro, telling him "what he wants to hear" does not work. You will try, and give him a lie that you think he wants, but he already the answer, and you get punished for it.

We are fortunate that their are very few pros out there. One has to somewhat on the psychopathic side to actually be good at this. An unintended result of that fact is that since psychopaths do very well in the world of organized crime, organized crime has much greater access to really capable torturers than most governments do. Don't believe me? Test it. Find out something that a drug kingpin really wants to know, and let them know you know. Get kidnapped. See how fast they get it out of you. People don't hold back the truth from drug lords.

The Chinese example is different. Communist strategy relies heavily on propaganda. They were not, in many cases, trying to gain information, the goal was to produce propaganda. And they succeeded.

Of course, a lot of organized crime torture has another goal as well: teaching the opposition not to mess with them. It works.

Either way, whatever the goal, propaganda, information, or deterrence, it's all about Pavlovian Conditioning. You decide in advance what you want your subject conditioned to, and design your sessions to get there, just like a professor working with lab rats.

It's a shame there isn't a lot of real knowledge about the subject. The people who know, don't tell, and the people who tell are generally so overwhelmed by emotion that they prefer rants, slogans, and far fetched hypotheticals (the ticking time bomb scenario, for example) to actual analysis.

Which is a good thing, really. Since they are unable to ask questions from a purely amoral and value-neutral frame of mind, they'd never be good torturers.

When discussing torture, logical argument is the first victim.

This is why the original post is meaningless. The objectives of Chinese interrogators are not necessarily those of American interrogaters, even if some of the methods are similar.

One is irrelevant to the other. It is like saying, since I drove a Volkswagen to the beach, you, obviously also driving a Volkswagen, must also be trying to get to the beach.
Incorrect. It's more like were are both driving Volkswagens and we both want to get to the beach, which beach we get to depends on what route we take.

You can't dismiss out of hand that torture methods will produce false results because the preliminary response to being tortured is to tell the torturer what he wants to hear, true or not.
If I tie you down and punch you in the face repeatedly while asking you if you are going to vote for Obama/McCain/Ronald McDonald, what are you going to tell me? Whichever one makes me stop.

Khalid did not give anything, as long as he was under torture. The story is quite the opposite of what you are telling.

Yes, wasn't any intelligence they got at all due to an interrogator that built up a relationship with him afterwards? I seem to recall having read an interview somewhere... Would you have a link or a name?

Andaras, sorry to burst your bubble, but YOU'RE NOT A COMMUNIST!

That's right, you're not a communist any more than an embryo is a capitalist. Because you don't KNOW about the system, and it shows whenever you claim that communism is about torturing people, denying them rights, and so on, all the while supporting it. I don't know and I don't care if you use this to troll, to shock your parents or what, but if you want to be an actual communist, begin by reading Das Kapital and other books, lest you be forever perceived as someone talking out of their behind. And kindly tell me how many positive mentions are there to gulags, wanton wars, torture and other such things in Das Kapital. My guess is the average number between 1 and -1.

To be fair, technically Stalinists are still Commies.

To be fair, technically Stalinists are still Commies.

He's free to quote Stalin's texts to me and prove he's a stalinist communist...