Again, I doubt it. Intel people wouldn't use the absolutes you use. Cops might, though. Again, interrogations are very different depending on if you're looking for a confession or looking for information.
I didn't say I work in intelligence. I'm not in that type of field. To be specific I work for ICE. I have arrested people connected with terrorism and I have interrogated them before. I'm sure you know this, but contrary to popular belief by most Americans, ICE does not generally go after random, peaceful people living here illegally. I don't deal with a bunch of immigrants and have them confess to me that they came here illegally. Sure, that's true. Looking for a confession is a lot different than looking for information. Most of the people I have interrogated has been to elicit information.
The point is federal law enforcement officers wouldn't have that clearance, period, and even within that clearance, you could get a copy of the interrogation dialogue, but you're not going to hear about means and methods. Which makes me wonder why you're so certain of what you believe. That waterboarding- to say nothing of torture- can never, ever work.
Not necessarily. GS-1811s and most other federal investigators have top secret clearance. I am willing to concede that I suppose in some remote chance, it can work - as I said before, I was a little hyperbolic. The point still remains though. Torture as a method is more ineffective and counterproductive. Don't forget the story of the agent years ago who got an al-Qaeda militant talking with a copy of Harry Potter and a plate of cookies. A lot of times, we can get these people to realize their cause is wrong and that we are a peaceful nation. Also look up Ali Soufan. He had Zubayda talking with normal interrogation, and CIA contractors (not officers, outside contractors) took him out of Soufan's custody. Note he was a federal law enforcement officer.
Well, interrogators disagree about the useful part, don't they? They do.
Actually, no. I've really never talked to anyone else other than you that thinks it's a useful method. TV interviews also. If you notice, they bring CIA officers on TV all the time who say torture doesn't work, FBI agents, etc, and they all agree with me - not as hyperbolic as me, but they do agree. I know an Air force interrogator who also doesn't agree with torture. I'm not friends with any local cops other than my wife's brothers, and I never got into this with them.
Carrots work sometimes, sometimes they don't. Sticks work sometimes, sometimes they don't. Interrogation- as you should know- is the art of getting someone to tell you something they don't want to tell you, regardless of whether it's a confession or information. If a carrot doesn't work, you need to get them uncomfortable (emotionally, usually) to where sharing that information will relieve them of that discomfort; cops, as I understand it, will often guilt the subject in some way in order to do this. That approach (the guilt) rarely works in counterterrorism/counterinsurgency, but there's other ways to try to make it happen. In some situations- but not by any means all- emotional discomfort is not enough but physical discomfort is. Just because emotional discomfort is not enough does not mean physical discomfort will be enough. Just because moderate physical discomfort is not enough doesn't mean more severe physical discomfort will work- but in some situations it works. That's all there is to it.
I'd say you can put it at a 99 to 1 ratio of carrots to sticks. You're not understanding what I'm saying. Physical discomfort, as in, torturing a subject until they want it to stop, is not effective. You will not get actionable information. Look at exhibit A, John McCain. He was, like terrorists/insurgents, trained at least somewhat to handle being interrogated. He knew that if they tortured him, all he had to do was make things up, which he did! And yes, obviously guilt is not effective with the type of people you were interrogating, though maybe it is possible on some homegrown non Islamists. I am a big fan of methods like sensory deprivation. Sleep deprivation, loud noises, blindfolding, can really work in some cases. The best part is, THEY AREN'T ILLEGAL! They disorient the subject. I'm not talking as far as what happened to Padilla, with loading the guy up with LSD and PCP and then causing permanent mental damage. I'm talking controlled methods that can take turning the lights out in the interview room or turning the heat on high to the next level.
Okay? It can be. Are we talking about effectiveness or not? Let's take this one step at a time.
Sure. just making sure you were aware of that.
No, that's just a UCMJ brief. You just told me what the policy was. You didn't engage in if it's effective or not. We know the policy, why quote it? It didn't say anything about if it could work or not, did it?
It said information from these methods is not always reliable.
I appreciate that, but it irritates me to no end to see you engage in such absolutes. Whether you want to believe me or not, I've worked in as an interrogator for the US Army and continued to work closely- and socialize even more closely, signals intelligence people are mostly geeks where HUMINT guys are fun- with them after that time. I can't think of any of them that would say "Under no circumstances can waterboarding produce actionable intelligence." I can think of many, though, that would say that 90% of the time you get what you need with less severe methods and 9% of you're not going to get anything, period, and only 1% of the time would be useful- I'd be one of them. And, in fact, the percentage is even lower than that. The situation in which these types of methods are useful are incredibly, incredibly rare. And the US used incredibly, incredibly rarely.
Alright. I will give you that. I apologize for being so absolute. Looking back a few pages, I do stick by all of what I said, but I shouldn't have been so absolute. That's interesting you said that because while I was typing this post I said pretty much the same thing above. I actually know of a case where a woman was captured in (I believe) Argentina by the military junta there in the 70s/80s and was tortured for weeks, and finally started giving info, but then they kept going with her, and her brain was completely fried. Not to be a dick or anything, but you don't want to get into knowing "people" with me. One of my good friends is in the white house, and is actually extremely high ranking over there, not the President or anything, but I'm sure you'd know who he is. I actually didn't meet him from my job, but through my daughter years ago, who is best friends with his daughters. I really don't like naming names, but let's just say he's in that picture with the President, VP, and others in the WH situation room that was all over the web following the UBL raid. My talks with him on waterboarding is mostly that it's not worth the risks even if it can in very rare situations give intelligence. I also know people in the CIA, FBI, Air Force intelligence, though no Army people, sorry
There's a good debate to be had about the pragmatic issues and risk vs. reward, and cost/benefit analysis. There's another good- but, to me, less interesting- debate about the morality of the practice regardless of pragmatic issues. But until you can admit that in very rare situations waterboarding can be effective, we can't get to that. Because you're just working in a very black-and-white worldview.
I'm sorry. I was being hyperbolic. The morality of the practice really doesn't bother me to be honest. The issue is it's risking something huge (our world credibility, recruiting for al-Qaeda, giving them the unalienable right to torture our men) for pretty much nothing.