| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:'UK Lives Saved by Waterboarding' | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 10/11/10 16:06:00 |
| Short answer: It comes down to ethics and efficacy, i.e. is waterboarding moral (or legal) and does it work? With regard to your hypothetical question, Francis, it’s neither. ------- Long answer: Waterboarding was used on three high-value suspects (one was waterboarded almost 200 times). It was therefore used to educe strategic intelligence from high-value suspects over relatively long periods of time – so was a different scenario to the quick tactical information required in your hypothetical one, Francis. If you are willing to use such physical interrogation for quick answers, why then stop at relatively ineffective waterboarding? Burning or sodomy might yield quicker results, so too a bad manicure or forcing a man to watch a female relative being gang-raped. In your hypothetical scenario, would you adopt such measures to avoid the murder of “100s or 1000s of people”? ------- And there ain’t only two answers to your question, Francis. Option (c) might be rendition to a third country. This may yield results and provide a measure of plausible denial. Option (d) might be ‘mild’ physical coercion, such as stress positions, sleep or sensory deprivation, a cold room or Barney* singing ‘I love you, you love me’ on a loop for hours at a time. The self-inflicted pain from the likes of stress positions obviates a battle of will between prisoner and interrogator. Option (e) could be to use less rigorous methods of interrogation, to treat detainees humanely and with kindness. Option (f) could be to go around the suspect and educe information via other sources and means (such as bribery). Option (g) might be to threaten the use of waterboarding, etc. The fear of such torture may educe better intelligence than the torture itself. Option (h) might be to use more extreme methods of physical interrogation than waterboarding. Option (i) could be to use a combination of the above. *Listen to the Barney song here and imagine being hooded and forced to listen to it hundreds of times in a row (is this torture?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ ------- Option (e) proved effective in Iraq from March 2006 onwards. Following the attack on the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra, a new team of interrogator’s replaced military fear-and-control techniques with methods commonly found in law enforcement (respect, rapport, hope, cunning and deception, etc). As such, the take from five al-Qaeda members led to the spiritual advisor of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, al- Qaeda’s leader in Iraq. Six hours of humane interrogation of Zarqawi’s spiritual advisor revealed more than twenty days’ worth of brutal interrogation. …With these six hours of humane interrogation leading directly to Zarqawi’s whereabouts. Brutal interrogation can force a suspect to clam up, hunker down and dig in (a “Mosh aref!” - “I know nothing!” - defensive posture). It can also prompt a suspect to say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear. So, such physical interrogation can produce unreliable intelligence, lengthen the interrogation process and compromise subsequent action. Humane interrogation, however, can trick or persuade the suspect into opening up. ------- Option (f) proved effective in Afghanistan, where an Anglo-American buyback scheme put a great deal of terror/insurgency materiel out of circulation. It also helped weed the ‘accidental guerillas’ from the Zarqawis of the world. In effect, US and UK special operations tracked down groups who were willing to trade weapons for money (or rat on rivals). This allegedly yielded more than the expected Stingers and MILANs and may have saved lives back home. To an extent, Option (e) also worked in Iraq (and, on a different level, Northern Ireland). |