I do not advocate torture, the ends do not justify the means, but...

[Silent3]

...just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I find myself wondering just how true it is when people say "torture doesn't work".

There are many situations where torture doesn't work, at least if your goal is obtaining good, factual information. If you're looking for false confessions to bolster your own agenda, oh, like forging the fiction of an Al Qaeda/Iraq connection, torture might very well "work".

What about getting real, truthful information, however? I can think of a situation where torture probably does work. I don't have any data to back this up, just my best guess about what I myself, and a lot of people in general, would probably give in to.

Suppose your interrogators are asking you a question of the type where the answer can be immediately verified, in mere hours, even minutes or seconds. They're asking for a password, a combination to a safe, a telephone number, an address to look for someone that can be checked quickly.

Perhaps your interrogators hurt you before even asking the first time so you know what the penalty is for not answering or not answering correctly. Suppose they chop off a finger. Every time they ask you "What's the password?" and you say "I don't know" or lie, you lose another finger. They tell you that if you run out of fingers that your eyes and genitals are next.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know how much of that I could take. One of the worst nightmare scenarios I can imagine is being in a situation like that an honestly not knowing the answer.

When people say "torture doesn't work" I think they're talking about situations where one is trying to gather general information about organizational structure, names of people in an organization or movement, future plans -- things that would be hard for the interrogators to check quickly, things that are "soft data" and subject to change over time anyway.

[cali]

1. Whether it works or not is wholly immaterial.

It's illegal. Not a little illegal or sort of illegal, completely illegal. And that doesn't even begin to address the moral issues.

[marshall]

92. I think that's the point

I am always hearing the "torture doesn't work" mantra. Of course it depends on the definition of the word "works", but to some degree of course it works. But that doesn't make it right.

Patrick Henry had it right when he said "Give me liberty or give me death". Are we now willing to compromise his ideals just to be a little safer? This country means more than that.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Ethinic cleansing can work too. Doesn't mean you do it.

And you need to waterboard somebody 180+ times get some piece of valuable information? Doesn't make a bit of sense.

Bottom line: It's illegal.

[Atman]

3. Robbing a bank often works in obtaining money to buy stuff you want.

Murder can be an effective way of getting rid of a pesky girlfriend or annoying neighbor, provided you take precautions to avoid getting caught.

.

[Orrex]

4. It works very well as a terrorist tactic, but as Cali rightly notes, that's irrelevant

If you want to get to the front of the ticket line at the ballpark, it would "work" to murder the 30 people between you and the window.

Rightwing pundits and the obliging media have falsely framed this as an argument between "does it work?" and "is it wrong?" as if there were some moral or concrete equivalency between these two, or as if these two were the only choices.

Whether or not it works is irrelevant; it is wrong. Disgustingly wrong, in fact.

[Silent3]

14. I bring this up because the moral argument against torture is the strongest...

...and the second strongest is self-protection: reducing the threat your enemies will use the same tactics against you, not giving your enemies a valid rallying cry against you.

I think some people are falling into the trap of the "does it work" argument by being in denial of the possibility that torture can work. If you make it a matter of political correctness to always say "torture doesn't work", regardless of the fact that sometimes it might, I think that strengthens rather than weakens the position of those who favor torture if it works -- if they can prove you wrong, they win that argument and can be seen as having strengthened their position.

I think it's better to concede that torture may work it limited situations, but then say loudly and clearly, "but it doesn't matter", rather than act like you have blinders on, acting like you fear an answer that doesn't fit the end result you're looking for.

[Orrex]

83. I'm not convinced that it can work in any generally useful or reliable way

It's been shown again and again that the victim of torture will say whatever he thinks will get the torturer to stop. If the victim reveals some true or useful information, that's lovely, but he's at least as likely simply to confess just to end the torture.

Let me pause to repeat the assertion that torture is always wrong.

It would be a different discussion if we could state with certainty that torture is the best means of procuring information, or if we could say that this or that terrorist plot was foiled after an afternoon of waterboarding, but we can't.

In a previous discussion on DU I asserted that torture doesn't work, and the other person argued that in certain specific instances it could be shown to work. He hypothesized a case in which I am being tortured to give up my ATM PIN code; this information is quickly verifiable, so the torturer can ascertain whether or not I'm lying. I concede that in specific, verifiable circumstances like these, it is possible that torture may work in extracting the desired information. But as you say it "it doesn't matter," because it's still wrong. Additionally, a hypothetical like that isn't really helpful because such cases are so rare as to be nonexistent--at least within the realm of legal pursuits. Why, for instance, would I be justified in torturing some guy to get his PIN code?

[Silent3]

89. "will say whatever he thinks will get the torturer to stop"

That's exactly my point. I realize these situations probably don't come up very often, but it's easy to imagine scenarios where only the true answer that you don't want to divulge will get the torturer to stop. Your PIN code example is exactly what I mean.

Why, for instance, would I be justified in torturing some guy to get his PIN code?

Hard to imagine a scenario where you would be justified. But that's why I'm trying to make a point of short-term efficacy, long-term/big picture efficacy, and morality all being separate things.

[HereSince1628]

5. Innocence by Reason of Productive Torture is a depraved defense

It is a ploy to shift attention away from an admited criminal act and put the law on trial.

Not surprisingly Cheney and his ilk are wholly behind the idea that cherry-picking memos is the best way to effect this defense.

[spanone]

6. it's illegal .....if it works is moot

[CJCRANE]

7. In the real world...

computer passwords, telephone numbers etc. can be found by technical specialists, you don't need to torture anyone.

[CJCRANE]

8. Remember the Cold War and the threat of MAD?

Soviet defectors came over to our side willingly to give information, they didn't need to be tortured.

On edit: meant to respond to OP

[Silent3]

49. Just as a lot of these "ticking time bomb" scenarios....

...are more about movies and television than real life, the idea that every password can be cracked after a few seconds of some geeky computer genius dancing his fingers over a keyboard is also a product of fiction.

[CJCRANE]

63. How did they know that Moussaoui had used Nick Berg's

password and email?

Anything that's web-based can be accessed by the NSA and I wouldn't be surprised if the official geeks know to to recover data from a hard-drive.

[Silent3]

74. A lot of data is gathered simply because people aren't careful...

...or they think they're being careful, but don't realize all of the pitfalls they can fall victim to. For example: deleted files, for instance, aren't truly gone when you delete them -- the space they had occupied is simply marked available for use, and the data is preserved until that space needs to be reused. Another example: if you're suspected of something and under surveillance, there are means of detecting what a person is typing on a computer, including picking up stray radio signals from keyboards and video displays, and capturing that information, including messages and passwords.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer is notorious for clinging to information about your browsing history, even after you think you've cleared that history.

With a little education, easily available encryption tools, disk-scrubbing tools, and the use of internet proxies and public wifi spots, however, someone with just a little smarts can encrypt and transmit data in ways that simply can't be cracked, or, more accurately, could theoretically be cracked, but only if you devoted many years (even tens, hundreds, or thousands of years) of high-powered computer resources to breaking the encryption.

People make a big deal out of the success stories when there's success in retrieving hidden data. You're not going to hear very much about all of the failures.

[endarkenment]

9. And if you don't know the password you will answer as well.

And if the password has been changed since your capture? After ten fingers and ten toes, what's next? An arm? An eye?

And every time you cough up a compliant answer to your torturers, they must go out and verify your data, and in doing so alert their enemies that they have you captured and are trying to get at the safe etc.

But none of this matters. There is no ticking bomb or 'but it works' exemption. Torture is a crime against humanity, a serious crime, a crime for which there are no exemptions of necessity.

[Burma Jones]

10. Torture is vengeance and a warning

The last Administration was proud of using torture and happy to have it publicized. The Chimp's minions tortured not to "save American Lives" but rather to punish and to desperately seek justification for the Iraq Invasion.

[SlingBlade]

11. Breaking the law is not a policy difference

If it were there would be no end to the atrocities a President could produce.
So whether or not it works is irrelevant, However

Were you to judge that as a qualifier you have only to look at Guantanamo
itself as a model. How many of those several hundred blood thirsty terrorist
have actually been charged with terrorism or for that matter, any crime ?

Torture confessions serve only to end the torture and swell the ranks of prisons
such as Abu Garabe and Guantanamo where even more torture occurs which
produce even more prisoners which in the end makes you the worlds number
one jailer.

Oh, I forgot, We are the worlds number one jailer, Aren't we :wow:


:kick:

[tekisui]

12. I'm sick of all the 'devil's advocates' on torture.

It is always wrong. It is always illegal. All this 'nuance' is bullshit.

[Silent3]

16. What nuance?

There's no advocacy for torture in my post whatsoever. The only "nuance" is for people who are incapable of making a distinction between contemplating an idea and advocacy.

This is the internet, however, so I was counting on many misplaced-anger posts regardless of whatever disclaimers I tried to make.

[tekisui]

18. Torture is an absolute wrong.

It is illegal and doesn't work. No scenario, no argument, no reasoning beyond that is needed.

Yours is just the latest in several 'devil's advocates' on torture. Why not leave it to the devils to advocate it?

[Silent3]

26. Admitting it might work in some cases isn't advocacy...

You say, "It's illegal and doesn't work".

That's a poor argument for two reasons. First, laws can be changed. Torture is wrong even if you make it legal. Second, the wrongness is there regardless of whether torture might occasionally be efficacious or not.

I posted here because people fall into the trap of not putting their best arguments forward first, and often make bad arguments in support of a good cause.

It's as if torture advocates started loudly proclaiming that "a square has four sides" and fool people who are against torture into logical backflips to deny that squares have four sides. People get sidetracked from their best arguments because of the emotional need to gainsay what the people they disagree with say.

[Occulus]

36. Yes. It is advocacy. Period. n/t

[Silent3]

38. So, squared don't have four sides...

...is your opponent wants them to have four sides?

[Occulus]

55. That response doesn't even begin to make sense. n/t

[Silent3]

61. You're confusing admitting whether something might work or not...

...with whether is should be done.

To use an example another poster used, one way to quiet your neighbor's barking dog is to shoot the dog. That certainly does not mean, in any way, shape, or form that you should shoot the dog, that there's any justification for shooting the bog, but it would be absurd to say that it wouldn't stop the dog from barking.

My point is that by insisting that torture can never, ever work, instead of making the more compelling moral and big-picture argument against torture, is that you can put yourself in a situation as absurd as claiming that shooting a dog could never, ever silence the dog.

[Occulus]

73. Torture is already known to not work.

Very widely known to not work. Known to not work for a long time now.

What I'm wondering is why you're even asking the question, or asking that the question be raised, as to whether or not it works. You already know the answer to that, or ought to.

So what gives?

[Silent3]

77. Because I don't know that it is known.

I don't know how much of what I hear is based on conclusive evidence, or is based on very different scenarios than what I describe, or is based on fear that saying anything different is equivalent to justifying torture.

[Silent3]

96. You're wrong. Exclamation point.

But thank you for your deep, thoughtful consideration of the subject matter, not to mention a stunning demonstration of your ability to read minds. Getting past all that annoying clutter of the things people actually say, and going with a knee-jerk reaction to an over-simplified gist of things, sure speeds up rapid judgment so you can get to blanket condemnation quickly with minimal fuss and bother.

[Spurt]

13. You are very mistaken.

You wrote....
I don't have any data to back this up, just my best guess about what I myself, and a lot of people in general, would probably give in to.

That is your fundamental mistake - imagining yourself in such a position.
The ones who may hold info of any real value are not ordinary Joe's. Therefore how you or anyone like you might fold is completely irrelevant.

Informed operatives likely to be tortured if captured are trained to first resist, then concede specious info.

Torture is unreliable at best. And immoral. And illegal.

[Silent3]

32. The problem with having solid data here...

...is that there's no moral way to gather good data. The best we can do is try to think through the psychology of the situation and put together accounts from people who've been through this on one side or the other, accounts which could be distorted in any numbers of ways.

The very way you phrase your response -- "You are very mistaken" -- tells me you're missing my point. It's hard to be "very mistaken" when all you're suggesting is that something might sometimes work.

To the extent that interrogation situations like this arise at all -- which is, thankfully, a rarity in the lives of normal people -- I have no idea, and I don't think you do either, how often it's "informed operatives" who are "trained" verses "ordinary Joe's".

Second, listening to people I've heard speak about programs like SERE, which are used to train people to resist torture, what I've heard a lot about is how hard it can be to resist torture, even with training. I deliberatley chose as an example something gruesome that a person couldn't specifically be trained against unless they show up at the interrogation already missing quite a few body parts.

The psychological impact of torture is only loosely related to quantities of pain. I've had very painful medical procedures which had zero emotional impact. I once had someone get out of his car at a traffic light and slap me (he'd been tailgating me to an extreme degree and I didn't go greatly out of my way to let him pass), a terribly weak slap I barely felt, yet I obsessed for weeks because I didn't get the full license plate number of the guy who did this.

It's easier to bear up to pain and stress when you know it's happening in a safe, friendly environment, especially when you know you volunteered for the experience as training, than it is when you're in a hostile environment, when you know your well-being is less important to your interrogators than getting information, perhaps of no importance at all to them.

Water boarding must be particularly awful if people can't bear it for long even when they know their in a safe, non-hostile environment.

You write: "trained to first resist, then concede specious info."

How useful could any training be if you've already experienced losing a finger, something well beyond what you might have been "trained" for, you know you've now suffered permanent physical damage in addition to great pain, and you know that all resistance and specious info can accomplish is the excruciatingly painful loss of more fingers, and even worse if you hold out longer? If you know holding out is going to leave you blind and disabled and possibly worse, if the worse fear becomes not that your interrogators will kill you, but the condition they'll make you live in for the rest of your life, I'm not sure how much resolve to resist any training, any dedication to a cause, can buy you.

[Spurt]

43. I didn't miss your point.

I believe you are quite mistaken in your conjecture.

You wrote "I have no idea, and I don't think you do either,"

I am retired military and my opinion is backed by formidable experience (26 yrs).
As I Said before...
Torture is unreliable at best. And immoral. And illegal.

A quick google will find you thousands of informative pages credibly examining tortures faulty function. I respectfully suggest you avail yourself of expert dissertation rather than imagining your own fingers being trimmed.

Cheers

[Quantess]

71. I'm so glad you posted today.

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

My very first thought upon reading this thread, was that the OP really has no basis for his arguments, and is conjecturing. It's not so different from believing that CO2 is harmless no matter what the quantity in the atmosphere, in ones own untested opinion.

[Silent3]

97. How much does your experience relate to what I'm asking?

What expert dissertations would you recommend? If I simply google "torture", I get a lot of stuff, some of which features black leather and wants my credit card, so at least help me narrow things down. :)

Let's get out of the way what I don't consider in dispute:

1) Does using torture work as a general policy? No, no dispute there.

2) Would scenarios like the one I'm discussing come up often enough such that having a torture policy in place to cover those circumstances would be worthwhile, or be worth the potential abuses? No, no dispute there.

3) Do the ends justify the means? No, no dispute there.

4) Can less coercive techniques do just as well or better than torture, at least for gathering some types of intelligence? Yes, no dispute there.

Now let's get to where I have my doubts, because things are being said, or at least suggested indirectly, that are highly counter-intuitive:

1) Training exists that is so effective that practically no one so trained ever breaks down in any significant way.

2) Nearly everyone who knows anything of value, be it on our side or among our adversaries, has this training.

3) People who don't know anything useful break down all the time and confess to all manner of wild, terrible things, but people who do have important information hardly ever break down.

4) Situations where the validity of a subject's answers can be quickly evaluated, making a quick cycle of punishment possible for wrong answers, are so very, very rare that you might as well say they just don't happen. (Please note that the "ticking time bomb" is only one possibility among many in this category.)

[JHB]

15. Even taking your point for sake of Devil's Advocate...

...The questioning that took place doesn't seem to have fit that "quickly verifiable" scenario.

[lunatica]

17. Capital punishment works too, in killing one offender, but doesn't deter

anyone else from killing. Yet the people for it still think it's effective. It's an ongoing debate even though it simply doesn't do anything except kill people

[Orsino]

19. That's why they call it devil's advocacy.

Contrarianism has its uses, I'm sure, but when it leads one to consider torture, it ought to be dropped.

[leftofthedial]

20. summary executions can also be quite effective at establishing order

[Robb]

21. My two favorite analogies right now:

1) Shooting your neighbor's dog "works" to stop it from barking. It doesn't make it right.

2) The shoplifter/serial thief: "Call it what you will, but look at all the great stuff I have!"

[KharmaTrain]

22. Chasing Your Tail...

As others have said, and I can't say enough...TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. It's against international law...conventions this country not only belongs to, but helped write. It's antithesis to everything this country is supposed to stand for, period.

While I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate here on DU, there's no wiggle room on this...just spinning and attempts to justify crimes. Any criminal can come up with a "good reason" they HAD to do what they did...and in their conveluted mind...they did, but does the ends justify the means?

One would hope with the vast resources this country has that our intelligence systems are sophisticated enough with all the high tech toys that we don't need to resort to medivial tactics to gain "critical itel". Colleen Rowley can show you many ways 9/11 was detected by conventional, "old fashioned" intel, NOT TORTURE...and how the booooosh regime blew it. They only heard and saw what they wanted to...and this leads to the holes in this DA argument.

To justify that "torture worked", you have to prove a plot was foiled...and none exists. Inversely, we did end up with constant "duct tape" warnings generated by false intel and this made us less safe. So this dance can go around and around.

[Smith_3]

23. I agree. I don't like the "torture doesn't work" argument either.

I don't think the debate should be phrased in terms of what works and what doesn't. Alot of things work but are immoral. If you are after some quick cash, robbing a gas station might "work". The reasons not to rob a gas station are manifold, but that doesn't mean it couldn't yield the desired results. I think if we let the debate slip towards whether or not torture works, we are ceding ground.

[Smith_3]

24. dupe

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Slavery worked well for the Plantation owners too

but aside from all of that bull shit about 'what works', let's look at your wee scenario, shall we? First, how is it that you know the subject has this information?
Second, you are using yourself as the image of the subject, which is silly. Any subject who did have high end, vital information as you suggest would be committed to a criminal dogma, trained for resistance, and willing to die for the cause.
Many US soldiers have been tortured and never given up a thing. Committed and trained.
So. What's your trainging?

[TorchTheWitch]

27. there is no situation where torture is justified

Because the information can be gotten by other non-abusive means. Doesn't matter if it's anything that can be quickly verified, there are other methods to get it, and if it is something that can be quickly verified, there are other methods to get that information that don't involve even questioning a captive at all much less torturing them for it. if it's something quickly verified than you already HAVE enough reliable info to find that one little puzzle piece by non-abusive means.

If you need a combination to a safe do you:
1) torture the captive for it
2) hire a safe-cracker

If you need a phone number or address do you:
1) torture the captive for it
2) get it from the phone company/mortgage records/other records or data bases

If you need a computer password do you:
1) torture the captive for it
2) hire a computer hacker

These are all ordinary investigative questions you don't even need to ask a captive about anyway much less torture them for it. Local police track down this kind of info ever damn day all over the country.

We've gotten along just fine whether it comes to finding out a safe combination or intricate national security information without ever having to use torture before... WHY is it suddenly necessary now??? It isn't. It flat out is NOT necessary. We already have reliable methods that work, so there is no NEED to EVER use torture as a means of gathering information.

Torture is never used as a method to obtain reliable information as torture doesn't produce reliable information, and if it isn't realiable it is worthless. That's why it doesn't work - it does not produce reliable information, and this has been well known for centuries.

We already have interrogation methods that are non-abusive and DO produce reliable information, so WHY use torture EVER when you want reliable information? It makes no difference whether the information wanted is general or easily verified, torturing to get it is not only unreliable it is UNNECESSARY.

If you have the choice of using:
1) reliable non-abusive methods that DO produce reliable information, or
2) unreliable torture methods that DON'T produce reliable information,
which one do you use?

Well, DUH! It's a no-brainer.

I'm actually horrified that anyone would ever contemplate torture as acceptable under any circumstances especially among progressives.

[Silent3]

41. Who said I was contemplating it as acceptable?

Yes, I knew ahead of time I'd probably take flack for my post. Re-read my post. Do you see any ADVOCACY for torture there?

If you have the choice of using:
1) reliable non-abusive methods that DO produce reliable information, or
2) unreliable torture methods that DON'T produce reliable information,
which one do you use?

My point is that we don't always have such clear-cut choices. There are scenarios, admittedly rare ones, having very little to do with what the Bush administration faced, where torture might "work" in the sense of getting reliable information. The reports that "torture doesn't work" aren't, as far as I can tell, related to those rare scenarios.

My point is not to advocate torture, it's to understand what the strongest arguments against torture are, and to realize that standing up for one's principles sometimes means sacrifice, that we don't always have easy "no brainer" decisions to make.

[TorchTheWitch]

67. No, there isn't

And no I never said you advocated torture... directly. You may not realize it, but legitimizing torture is all to close to advocating it. When you make false claims that there are rare occasions where it does produce reliable information and may be necessary, you're legitimizing it. What is it that you aren't getting here? Torture does not produce information that can be relied on as truthful because when one is tortured they will say ANYTHING to make the torture stop. That doesn't say that the subject won't tell the truth, they certainly might, but you will have no way of knowing whether it's the truth or not. This is an established fact with a history going back centuries, which is why when one wants reliable information one uses other methods that ARE reliable.

If you have the choice of using:
1) reliable non-abusive methods that DO produce reliable information, or
2) unreliable torture methods that DON'T produce reliable information,
which one do you use?

If you can't see an absolute clear-cut choice between 1 and 2 than it sure as hell looks like you may indeed advocate torture because you sure as hell have justified it. Yeah, the answer to this question is a no-brainer all right. Maybe you missed the part where torture is not necessary EVER completely aside from the moral aspect of it since we ALREADY HAVE a variety of non-abusive interrogation methods that WORK.

Read that question again. Read it very carefully. If after doing that you STILL believe that the answer is not obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence there is no helping you.

If you really think that chosing not to torture is some kind of sacrifice I have to wonder what in the world you're doing here. When you sacrifice something you are losing/giving up something of value. Since torture does not produce reliable information and other methods that are non-abusive DO produce information that is reliable torture has no legitimate justifiable value. So, what in the HELL is being SACRIFICED by chosing not to torture???

[Silent3]

68. First of all, I made no claims...

...I simply wondered aloud if a particular kind of situation would be the kind of situation where torture might yield information.

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between the words "advocating" and "legitimizing" either. Something can be effective in a limited sense, but neither legitimate nor morally justifiable. I don't consider torture either moral or legitimate. Wondering if it might work in a given scenario, even strongly suspecting that it might work, is not the same as calling it a legitimate thing to do. When I imagine this kind of scenario, it best fits in a situation where not only are the means morally repugnant, but so is the end goal as well, such as a robber trying to get a victim to divulge the combination to a safe.

If the answer to my hypothetical interrogation situation is, "No, not even is a situation like that will torture work", then all the more reason on top of other good reasons not to use torture.

I do have to wonder, however, if the answers I hear to questions like this are factual or emotional answers, whether the supposed "experience in the field" really matches the kind of scenario I'm describing. Because a lot of people (as evidenced by this thread) can't or won't make a distinction between efficacy and morality, I have to suspect that a lot of times when someone loudly proclaims "Torture does not work!" that they phrase it that way out of fear that anything saying anything else opens the door to justifying torture.

As for, "So, what in the HELL is being SACRIFICED by chosing not to torture", the rhetorical answer you expect, "nothing is being sacrificed" only makes sense if I grant you that torture never, ever works, and I'm simply saying that, regardless of the adamant claims that it doesn't, I'm not sure that absolutely true.

Doubting that this is absolutely true is not the same as advocating OR legitimizing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Rape can be effective in producing children. Armed robbery can feed your children.

Arson can spare you mortgage payments.

Rationalizations can be effective in justifying almost anything.

[Silent3]

37. To accept the possibility that something might work...

...is not the same thing as considering it a valid rationalization. I'm not trying to rationalize anything, I'm not trying to grant anyone any justifications. I started out saying that I don't condone torture.

[SidDithers]

29. Is it safe?...

Sid

[Starry Messenger]

30. If you are answering "I don't know" or lying...

doesn't that mean that torture "isn't working"?

[Silent3]

33. But how long do you think most people could keep that up?

Even supposedly "trained" people, if they do know the answer, and the penalty for resistance or bad info is immediate, extremely painful, permanently disabling and disfiguring?

For what little good it will do me in an internet forum, I'll repeat my disclaimer: I AM NOT ADVOCATING TORTURE. I am merely arguing against the unqualified assertion that it doesn't "work" is probably inaccurate for all possibly situations, and that it's better to argue against the morality of torture and against the "big picture" damage being known for torture can do to our country.

[Starry Messenger]

40. How long could they keep that up?

I don't know. I guess we'll find out during the trials. I have to got to work so I don't have time to look it up, but I thought there was a lot of solid science that proved that gaining a rapport with the subject was a lot more effective than torture.

[EFerrari]

31. Your proposition is just a version of the ticking time bomb scenario

and we have already been told unequivocally by ex CIA that it doesn't happen.

[Silent3]

34. I freely admit the scenario contrived...

...but I think it's more likely than the "ticking time bomb" scenario. If you capture a suspect who's carrying a laptop or a thumb drive that contains encrypted files -- I don't think that's too far-fetched, it has probably happened more than once and is likely to happen again -- and you want fast access to those files (whether your haste would be justified or not is another matter), I suspect that torture would often "work" to get the suspect to divulge the passwords. It only takes a few seconds to type in a password and see if it works, so reprisal would be immediate for bad info.

To repeat my disclaimer once more: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR TORTURE. Admitting that it might sometimes work is NOT the same as saying the ends justify the means.

[EFerrari]

42. Intelligence professionals tell us it happens in movies and on television. n/t

[lame54]

35. See this weeks Top 10 Conservative Idiots...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x443743


The Party Of Torture

Vampires hate sunlight, and Republican bloodsuckers were scrambling for the safety of their coffins last week after President Obama released a series of Bush Administration torture memos. But it didn't take long for the pushback to begin. Our Great Ex-Leader remained silent on the matter (probably because he hasn't seen the outside of a bottle of Jim Beam since January 20th) so it was up to the ever-popular Dick Cheney to catapult the GOP's pro-torture propaganda.

Cheney appeared on Fox News (natch) and in an unprecedented and unstatesmanlike bit of president-bashing told Sean Hannity that Barack Obama was making the country less safe, and that the memos ignored "the success of the effort."

Which is odd because according to the Washington Post on April 24:

The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.

Not so fast, cried Dick! "... There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity," he told an enraptured Hannity. "They have not been declassified."

Which is odd because according to the Washington Post on March 28:

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

But never mind that - Cheney's comments had already paved the way for a whole host of GOP minions to dutifully pick up the "Yay Torture!" baton and run with it. Take for example Deroy Murdock who wrote in the National Review last week that:

While the White House must beware not to inform our enemies what to expect if captured, today's clueless anti-waterboarding rhetoric merits this tactic's vigorous defense. Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud. Waterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk.

Rah rah waterboarding! Okay, sure, so after World War II we may have executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American prisoners, but who cares about that? Waterboarding is something we should all be proud of!

Murdock went on to list a bunch of terrorist plots that torture allegedly uncovered. Which is odd because according to McClatchy Newspapers:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.

But there is actually plenty of evidence to indicate that torture worked exactly the way the Bush Administration wanted it to. What do I mean by that? Well, a Senate report released last week revealed that:

President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. This act, the committee found, cleared the way for a new interrogation program to be developed in-part based on "Chinese communist" tactics used against Americans during the Korean War, mainly to elicit false confessions for propaganda purposes.

And why would the Bush Administration need to "elicit false confessions for propaganda purposes?" I'm glad you asked. McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that:

The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.

(snip)

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly - Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 - according to a newly released Justice Department document.

(snip)

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Starting to connect the dots yet?

[tocqueville]

39. if torture "worked"...

the Romans had silenced early Christians
the Inquisition had silenced all "heretics"
the Gestapo had silenced all resistance
the "Francos" had silenced the Basques
the French had silenced the Algerians
the "Pinochets" had silenced Chile, Argentina...
the Chinese had silenced Tibet
the US had silenced Al Quaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Talibans etc... not to forget old stories like Filipinnos, Vietnamese etc...

etc... etc...

and the torture in most of all those cases was far worse than the one discussed here and aimed not only to extract information but to instillate fear (which was far more efficient)

did it work ?

no

which means that torture is a "sucessfull" tactical measure that ensures a strategical defeat.

I am not here discussing the ethical argument.

[Silent3]

44. You're taking a very broad picture of torture...

...while I'm asking you to consider (DISCLAIMER! ALERT! NOT TO CONSIDER AS JUSTIFICATION!!!) a specified, somewhat contrived and probably rare scenario where answering your interrogators provides immediate relief and not answering or not answering correctly results in immediate painful, disfiguring and debilitating reprisal.

The possible efficacy of torture within the limited scope of a single interrogation session is a very, very different issue than trying to impose one's will on an entire group of people through intimidation and fear.

[Marrah_G]

48. Are you a witch? No. Wrong answer. (scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch? No.

Wrong answer.

(scream)

Are you a witch?

YES, YES I AM A WITCH, I HAVE SEX WITH THE DEVIL AND A KILLED GOODY SO-AND-SO'S COW.
__________________________________________________

See how that works?

Yeah

Torture doesn't work.

[Silent3]

50. That's a different kind of "working".

There's a difference between getting someone to say a pre-determined thing you want them to say, and getting them to divulge a verifiable fact which can be objectively determined true or false. Again, this is utterly apart from the legality or morality of reaching the desired end result this way.

[Marrah_G]

52. You can get them to say anything you want them to say- to match any details you want.

[Silent3]

58. There's still a big difference between getting someone...

...to follow a script you want them to recite, to confess to crimes regardless of whether they committed them or not, give up the names of other people as guilty of whatever, etc., than it is to extract dry, factual information that you didn't have before the interrogation, information that you can be objectively certain is true once you obtain it.

I'm not sure what your point is. If the point is that torture is morally wrong, I already agree with you.

If the point is that all torture can EVER can produce is bad information or a predetermined end result, you're comparing two scenarios that aren't the same. A unknown password for opening a file can't be predetermined interrogators. It would do them no good to decide ahead of time that the password should be "imawitch" and making you say that.

[tocqueville]

69. I said it could be under certain circonstances..

a "tactical success"

But on the other hand since obviously it deprives you of your strategical goal, it remains meaningless

its like torturing your car's engine by not filling with oil (lubricant) or antifreeze to save some bucks. Old tyres too. You might in the end even go over the hill with some blown valves, go down on free gear and if you dont leave the road, arrive home "safe". But your car is dead, irreparable. And since the savings you have bben making on oil and tires are not sufficient to buy a new car, your are without one and lose your job.

Or for example your mule refuses to move. So you sit on it and put your lit cigar up her ass. Yeehaa ! IT WORKS ! But next time you go behind her she will kick you in the face and you'll die.

Besides the argument of threat with "immediate painful, disfiguring and debilitating reprisal" (now we're talking about REAL torture not torture for sissies) isn't valid either. Because there are people that don't talk anyway, how horrible the torture may be.
Klaus Barbie horribly tortured Jean Moulin the French resistant to death and it didnt work. Besides what Barbie could have learned of Moulin, he already knew it. So it was pure sadism. And Moulin will be a French hero forever while Barbie will remain the eternal villain. And even if Moulin had "talked" it would be the same.

the Viets tortured McCain to confess he was an horrible imperialistic tool. He did. Big deal. The sole gain they did out of it was to have som leaflets printed for the home front, who already knew he was an "horrible imperialistic tool". They had won much more in credibility if they had tried him in front of neutral observers, with a regular defense, for bombing civilian populations, even if he denied to do so. Then some jail sentence. They would have had a least some moral high ground. But what was the result of their behaviour ? more pissed Americans that poured more napalm.

so the "efficacity of torture within the limited scope of a single interrogation session" is nothing but dangerous rethorics because it opens the door to REAL shit, while the result (even if attained) could in most cases be attained with other means and without all the backlash it inevitably causes. So it's not efficient.

The efficiency of "torture within the limited scope of a single interrogation session" can be compared with the mentality "shoot first, talk later". It might save you once, but one day you'll kill your son because he was playing with towels around his head and a fake beard for the yearly Christmas pageant. Then what ? You turn the gun on yourself.

[Silent3]

87. Your answer gets right to my question.

There are a lot of people who won't even admit to that possibility of a "tactical success", for fear the admitting such a thing either legitimizes torture or makes one appear to be an advocate of torture.

I think it's better to admit the possibility, then get on with explaining why the tactical success doesn't matter, than to tie oneself down to an absolutist position that might not hold up under examination.

[tocqueville]

95. a theoretical, short-sighted sucess

shouldn't be employed anyway because the risks are to big. So it remains virtual.

Besides there are other aspects (morality, unreliability etc...) that make the thing even more virtual. In other words the inconvenients are so big under ALL circumstances (even the most favorable), that it shouldn't be employed. It might be extremely difficult to find an extremely dangerous terrorist in a town, that's not why you nuke it, even if if you were sure at 100% that he wouldn't survive and thus never endanger anybody anymore.

Compare with the "predator" technique in A-Stan/Pakistan. It's sometimes efficient but causes so much collateral damage that the war risks being lost. So the efficiency is counter-efficient. "Overkill" creates more problems than it solves.

I think that it isn't the first time the US meets this problem on a various scope of issues.

[Marrah_G]

45. And there were a couple million witches in the 16th and 17th century...

No, torture does not work.

[Silent3]

51. To repeat what I said in response to a similar post...

...there's a difference between getting someone to say a pre-determined thing you want them to say (Yes, I'm a witch!), and getting them to divulge a verifiable fact which can be objectively determined true or false (you type in the password the subject gives, and the file opens or it doesn't). Again, this is utterly apart from the legality or morality of reaching the desired end result this way.

[Marrah_G]

53. Even the military will tell you that this rarely works.

[Silent3]

59. Is it that the technique rarely works...

...or that the scenarios where such a technique might apply rarely come up?

[Silent3]

94. I'm sure it is probably rare.

The interesting question is this: Why is success via torture rare?

Is that rarity due to the rarity of that kind of clear-cut verifiable data situation, or is it rare because in such situations people resist better than one might imagine, or does it rarely work because people get so messed up that even if they want to divulge the information that would stop the torture they're too confused and incoherent to supply it?

[NNN0LHI]

46. Everyone is a suspect after a terrorist attack

Would you "advocate" having the cops pick up some members of your family and torture them to find out if they had something to do with it? Perhaps your parents or your children?

Even if it just might prevent another attack?

Because that is where this could go.

Don

[grahamhgreen]

47. You're framing is evil. If torture works, why not use it on children when they lie?

[Silent3]

54. You're making a big, unfounded assumption about the framing.

To admit that something might work in some circumstances is not all the same as to say that it's the right thing to do. Just like your example, I can think of many things that "work" in some sense, which might accomplish some narrowly-defined goal, but that I wouldn't do or want anyone else to do.

It's a curious, but sadly expected, thing that people will confuse considering that something might work and advocating that it be done.

[grahamhgreen]

65. It doesn't matter if it 'works'. It's a non-issue.

[Spazito]

56. Torture is ILLEGAL....

It is NOT a moral issue, it is a crime. To try and re-direct it into a moral question is an attempt to divert attention from the facts.

[csziggy]

57. Torture is illegal, murder is illegal - it does not matter if either work

From CNN's 'Reliable Sources'. Joan Walsh tries to get through to David Frum and Chris Cillizza that public opinion polls and whether anyone can claim that torturing prisoners "worked" or not do not matter.

WALSH: You know, I couldn't disagree more with my friend Chris. This is not a "he said/she said" situation. This is torture. Torture is illegal. We don't sit here, Howie, and say he said murder is illegal, but she said, well, sometimes murder's not so bad. These are clear matters of law.

Ronald Reagan signed the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture where we committed ourselves to prosecuting people who torture. It's the law. It's super clear. It's not a partisan witch hunt or a "she said/he said" situation.

<SNIP>

CILLIZZA: Joan, just real quickly, I just want to point out, in our poll that came our this morning, 49 percent of people said no torture under any circumstances; 48 percent, in some special circumstances, depending on the information. That's not my opinion.

(CROSSTALK)

WALSH: But Chris, the point is it's illegal. In what instance does it matter that 80 percent of Americans would like to murder Dick Cheney? Does that -- would that make it legal? It's not a matter of opinion. It's law.

Full transcript and video at link: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/27688

The US used to be a country of laws. It would be nice to have that be true again.

But whether or not torture could be effective - which by all objective evidence it is not - it is ILLEGAL. Our country signed treaties agreeing with the international community that it is illegal. We have laws in this country making it illegal. The poorly considered, poorly researched, ill advised memos from Bush's pet attorneys did not overturn either the international agreements or US law, torture was and still is illegal.

[Spike89]

60. Interrogation works too, oh, and is legal

Cutting off fingers is a bit extreme and limits you to ten questions. Legal means also work and you never run out of victim digits. A significant extra benefit is that your interrogating staff don't have to become souless monsters either.

[Jim__]

62. If torture works, why shouldn't we use it?

I have no doubt that on occasion, torture can be used to extract information, good information. Does that mean that it works? We can only look at things within some context. Let's look at torture within the context of the US government administering torture. Can it work?

Let's say that the US government is torturing someone to get information they believe that the suspect has and that getting this information will contribute to the security of the United States. But, what is the United States and why do we want to protect it? To me, what makes the US worth protecting is its (at least theoretical) belief in and respect for human rights. But torture, and especially torture to extract information we "suspect" this person may have is clearly a violation of human rights. So, can we protect the United States by violating the essential feature that makes it worth protecting?

And, if we agree that the US can commit torture under certain circumstances, does anyone believe that the US will not eventually (if it hasn't already) torture its own citizens? Don't we lose what we are fighting for if we allow torture? If that's so, can torture work?

[CJCRANE]

64. Any agent that decides to break the law

in your one in a million scenario needs to make the judgment call on their own and suffer the legal consequences.

[johnaries]

66. Your hypothetical isn't realistic and doesn't apply.

If the info is "instantly verifiable", then it can be discovered through trial and error or other means much more quickly and efficiently than threatening to chop someone's finger off.

Although torture does occasionally give good information, the mountain of false and invalid information that you have to investigate first in order to find the "good" information makes it impractical, at best. The interrogators liked torture because it produced some kind of results and they didn't care if it was good or bad. The analysts HATED torture because they were overwhelmed by the amount of information they had to try and verify - the vast majority of which they could not.

[AzDar]

70. Doesn't fucking matter if it works. It is A WAR CRIME.

Fuckity-fuck! Are we REALLY having these conversations in 21st-century America?:mad:

[Occulus]

81. It's a FOX News-style question

"Are black people lazier than white people?"
"Are Jews after your money?"
"Do gays try to recruit straights?"
"Can torture work in certain situations?"
"Is Obama a muslim?"
"Are Democrats socialists?"
"Do video games make children violent?"

Hand, meet glove. Whaddaya know! It fits.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. In the reality based community where I live in

not only does it not work, but people are trained to resist it... especially for things that you can confirm that fast

They are trained to resist as long as possible, where those things will be changed

People should buy a clue on the way to posting

And devil's advocate matters in things like this are not defensible either

[Silent3]

80. I don't deny that such training exists...

...and I'll gladly replace my suspicions with hard data. I'll also gladly hear hard data on how often interrogation involves people who have received that kind of training verses how often it doesn't.

From what I've heard so far all I've gotten is "trust me, it doesn't work" or "look it up, you'll see".

How do you find out that this doesn't work? I'd hope that the US hasn't done anywhere near enough torture to gain a lot of data on this. How much data do we have from people who have performed torture or who have been subjected to torture? How reliable could that data be?

When I see the strong emotional response that a post like mine generates I don't really know how much I'm dealing with the "reality based community" here. I get the sense of "Don't EVEN go there!", the idea that since torture is morally wrong (with which I agree, but I don't expect emotionally worked-up people to hear that) that it's best to only look at data that confirms the idea that it's ineffective on top of being immoral.

[Matariki]

75. "I don't have any data to back this up"

"I've just seen movies where it worked..."

[TheMachineWins]

76. Amazing that it's seriously discussed

I read an article the other day that said people who supported war crimes may some day be held accountable, kind of like David Duke being held for being a holocaust denier.

[Quantess]

78. Torture "worked" to achieve Cheney's ends.

Torture yielded the false intelligence he was hoping to hear, to get the suspects to say that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeida were linked.

Torture results in suspects saying whatever the torturers want to hear. So for Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, torture worked.

[DireStrike]

79. You are not a "terrorist".

You have things to live for.

[Bucky]

82. Total number of "ticking bomb" scenarios in US history: 0

Sorry, but the real world doesn't happen that way. I imagine that if there ever were a ticking bomb situation, the cops would do what they have to do, regardless. The problem is that if you make torture an acceptable part of policy, it will happen routinely and create a dozen times more terrorists -- and make existing terror-sympathyzers that much more radicalized.

[Orrex]

84. Correct! And...

Once you accept the "ticking bomb" scenario as justification, you've opened the door for all sorts of arbitrary conditions under which torture is justified.

If a bomb-threatened stadium full of people is sufficient to justify torture, why not a single at-risk life? "I tortured Sam because, if I hadn't, Bob would have died."

The "ticking bomb" is an absurd and offensive justification.

[Political Heretic]

85. The overwhelming consensus of interrogation experts for decades or more has been that its unreliable

Done.

[northzax]

86. of course torture works

the only problem is, you have to actually know something to tell them anything while under torture. how many fingers and testicles should I take from you before I believe that you don't actually have any information for me?

or even better, how many more times do my soldiers have to rape your children in front of you before you tell me what I want to know? hey, inflicting pain on you isn't nearly as effective as inflicting pain on people you care about. would you crack after the fifth soldier has his way with your daughter, or the tenth? twentieth? thirtieth? cause I got an unlimited number of soldiers.

oh, you don't actually know anything? huh. well, your daughter won't mind, right?

[Silent3]

88. I don't know if you can say "of course torture works"...

...because a lot of the responses to this thread are that is absolutely doesn't. Neither in my hypothetical situation or yours, even if the information asked is known.

Apparently all people either hold out, give bad information, or the people who can't hold out are never in that situation, and these situations don't ever come up anyway.

Simultaneously, we train everyone with important information to resist these torture techniques that are never used, and from all of the times this has never happened we can tell that the training worked when the people who were trained were never tortured.

[northzax]

90. trust me, it works

give a halfway decent torturer a couple of days and you will spill your deepest, darkest secrets. the problem is, you have to have the right secrets to give.

there's a reason why the Catholic Church makes Saints out of people who kept their faith even under torture. everyone talks, everyone breaks. everyone.

[Evoman]

91. When the number of cases in which it works or could work is almost zero, then it might as well be 0.

I agree that it definitely is not the best argument against torture. However, it is still an argument that is worth making, especially for the sociopaths who can't grasp the whole "immoral" thing.

Like, I don't know....DICK CHENEY and his psycho soldiers.

[cosmik debris]

93. You can't separate efficacy and morality .

At least not in this forum.

[walldude]

98. Ok, let me play devils advocate for a moment,

WHAT ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TORTURE. PERIOD. You and the neo-cons and the talking heads can fucking babble this shit all you want. Devils advocate or not it makes no difference.

I got in a huge argument with a guy about this this weekend. He screamed about "playing nice and white gloving" the torturers, about wiping them all out, and about how great this sits with Jesus and God.
For some people there is no hope. They are so simple minded, and so lacking in any kind of compassion that they will never understand.


You torture, you become worse than your enemy.

[Silent3]

99. Where in my post is there a search for justification?

I'm not the guy you argued with this weekend.

[Overseas]

100. When the "people" who say that are professional interrogators

It depends upon who the "people" are who say torture doesn't work. When they are professional interrogators who have seen both types of questioning tried, and have been trained by expert interrogators, then I listen carefully. Military and intelligence experts have told us again and again that torture doesn't work. The professionals. Not the armchair warriors.

Yes, we've had a hot TV show that pretends torture works, but that is fiction.

What complicates the issue for the USA is that we swept many innocent people into detention and torture. Took away habeas corpus. They didn't even get the chance to hear what they were accused of. We didn't even know if they were indeed enemy combatants before we administered the harsh techniques a.k.a. torture. So people who were swept up as bystanders to the battles, or turned in for cash, would have to make stuff up to get the torture to stop.

And then there's the whole issue of the hundreds who were tortured having thousands of family members with a far deeper hatred of the USA. Torture creates far more enemies for its perpetrators than it reveals.

And then there's that gosh-darned "support the troops" thing-- when we practice torture, we're opening the door to our own troops being tortured more. We join the renegade regimes who practice torture, instead of being known to follow the Geneva Conventions, which has in the past induced some enemy combatants to give up the fight more easily, with less bloodshed, because they expected to be treated more humanely in our POW camps.