Outsourcing Torture

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
. That's why its so objectionable that Bush is destroying the very things that makes our society more free.

a non citizen is caught outside US borders, and is taken to a foreign country, where he is tortured to get info on an actual terror org, not to get a confession for use in a court. How does this imperil freedom in the US, exactly?(which is not to say its wise, the cost in hearts and minds when this gets out likely outweighs the limited value of information, but id like a more balanced set of experts on that, not just Scheuer)

[Ramo]

a non citizen is caught outside US borders, and is taken to a foreign country, where he is tortured to get info on an actual terror org, not to get a confession for use in a court. How does this imperil freedom in the US, exactly?(which is not to say its wise, the cost in hearts and minds when this gets out likely outweighs the limited value of information, but id like a more balanced set of experts on that, not just Scheuer)

Who are you referring to? Arar, for instance, was aprehended in New York. Folks like Qaseem just disappeared in Egypt.

And when we send them to be tortured, it decreases the liberty of everyone. Americans aren't the only people who count.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
He's a Canadian citizen.

He's a Syrian citizen.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Japher


Normal Canadian or French Canadian?

he apparently had "dual" citizenship with Syria and Canada.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

a non citizen is caught outside US borders, and is taken to a foreign country, where he is tortured to get info on an actual terror org, not to get a confession for use in a court. How does this imperil freedom in the US, exactly?(which is not to say its wise, the cost in hearts and minds when this gets out likely outweighs the limited value of information, but id like a more balanced set of experts on that, not just Scheuer)

Who are you referring to? Arar, for instance, was aprehended in New York. Folks like Qaseem just disappeared in Egypt.

And when we send them to be tortured, it decreases the liberty of everyone. Americans aren't the only people who count.

I was referring to one of the things in your LONG article, which said something about snatching people in different places abroad.

Quite frankly I dont see that it decreases the liberty of everyone. Torture is a threat to liberty in so far as its used by govt to extract confessions from political enemies of the govt - it may also be morally opposed on grounds of general cruelty, but thats not a threat to liberty as such. These folks are NOT being coerced to confess, as a general rule. How is anyone less FREE if the Syrians use electric shock, than we are if the Syrians simply hold them in prison?

Im NOT advocating torture - it is widely considered ineffective in getting reliable info - and its NOT good for our public diplomacy at this point - but the idea that because we rendered a Syrian to Syria and the Syrians did what theyre known for somehow imperils freedom in the US, or anywhere else in the world, and therefore we need to get all worked up about this, is not a sentiment I share, Im afraid.

[Ramo]

He's a Syrian citizen.

He was a Canadian citizen of Syrian birth who was coming back from a vacation from Tunisia, was transferring planes in New York (I.E. he was not an illegal immigrant), was picked up by the US, sent to Syria to be tortured for something like two years. He only got out due to the efforts of the Canadian gov't.

[lord of the mark]

oh, and we shouldnt have nabbed that Syrian canadian fellow who was passing through NY - whatever intell they may have gotten is certainly not worth the hubbub this has created with the Canadians, whose help we need on many other things.

[Ramo]

Perhaps it wasn't worth it since torture and denial of due process is wrong?

[Japher]

He was a Canadian citizen of Syrian birth who was coming back from a vacation from Tunisia, was transferring planes in New York (I.E. he was not an illegal immigrant), was picked up by the US, sent to Syria to be tortured for something like two years. He only got out due to the efforts of the Canadian gov't.

Sounds like a made for TV movie.

[Ramo]

I was referring to one of the things in your LONG article, which said something about snatching people in different places abroad.

Quite frankly I dont see that it decreases the liberty of everyone. Torture is a threat to liberty in so far as its used by govt to extract confessions from political enemies of the govt - it may also be morally opposed on grounds of general cruelty, but thats not a threat to liberty as such. These folks are NOT being coerced to confess, as a general rule. How is anyone less FREE if the Syrians use electric shock, than we are if the Syrians simply hold them in prison?

Im NOT advocating torture - it is widely considered ineffective in getting reliable info - and its NOT good for our public diplomacy at this point - but the idea that because we rendered a Syrian to Syria and the Syrians did what theyre known for somehow imperils freedom in the US, or anywhere else in the world, and therefore we need to get all worked up about this, is not a sentiment I share, Im afraid.

Ok, sending terror suspects to places like Syria where there's no due process is a threat to liberty everywhere. That's ultimately the point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Perhaps it wasn't worth it since torture and denial of due process is wrong?

lots of wrong things are justified in unusual instances to stop other wrong things, and yet should still be formally banned. Sorry if Im too Straussian for your tastes.

As for denial of due process, that would implicate rendition to ANY country that lacks due process REGARDLESS of whether it engages in torture or not. And thats a completely different arguement. That gets to the question of the criminal justice approach to the WOT and the War approach - which would say that enemy combatants CAN be held without trial, as POWS are. i realize the dangers of the war approach(namely the slippery slope), but also the limits of the criminal justice approach - namely the certainty that AQ will utilize it as much as they can to gather information, etc.


I would also suggest that torture aside, it IS a good idea to extract info from these people, and even many non-torture approaches require things like isolation that are not compatible with due process.

[Ramo]

I'd say that excessive solitary is indeed torture. Note that there was a British case (mentioned in the other torture thread, and alluded to in this article) where a few aid workers were picked up in Afghanistan, sent to Gitmo, sent into solitary excessively. Eventually they gave in after being threatened with a year of solitary, as another has apparantly had. They gave false confessions, giving the interrogators what they wanted. But British intel had some hard evidence backing their alibis, and only then were they released.

I'd add, from the New Yorker article:

For ten years, Coleman worked closely with the C.I.A. on counter-terrorism cases, including the Embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. His methodical style of detective work, in which interrogations were aimed at forging relationships with detainees, became unfashionable after September 11th, in part because the government was intent on extracting information as quickly as possible, in order to prevent future attacks. Yet the more patient approach used by Coleman and other agents had yielded major successes. In the Embassy-bombings case, they helped convict four Al Qaeda operatives on three hundred and two criminal counts; all four men pleaded guilty to serious terrorism charges. The confessions the F.B.I. agents elicited, and the trial itself, which ended in May, 2001, created an invaluable public record about Al Qaeda, including details about its funding mechanisms, its internal structure, and its intention to obtain weapons of mass destruction. (The political leadership in Washington, unfortunately, did not pay sufficient attention.)

[...]

Coleman was angry that lawyers in Washington were redefining the parameters of counter-terrorism interrogations. “Have any of these guys ever tried to talk to someone who’s been deprived of his clothes?” he asked. “He’s going to be ashamed, and humiliated, and cold. He’ll tell you anything you want to hear to get his clothes back. There’s no value in it.” Coleman said that he had learned to treat even the most despicable suspects as if there were “a personal relationship, even if you can’t stand them.” He said that many of the suspects he had interrogated expected to be tortured, and were stunned to learn that they had rights under the American system. Due process made detainees more compliant, not less, Coleman said. He had also found that a defendant’s right to legal counsel was beneficial not only to suspects but also to law-enforcement officers. Defense lawyers frequently persuaded detainees to coöperate with prosecutors, in exchange for plea agreements. “The lawyers show these guys there’s a way out,” Coleman said. “It’s human nature. People don’t coöperate with you unless they have some reason to.” He added, “Brutalization doesn’t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.”

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Q, I don't want to threadjack this thread anymore. I'd just add that plenty of Congressmen and Senators (including both of your Senators) oppose this practice, and that there are countless ways to impact the system, the "duopoly" is not an insurmountable barrier. If you want to continue, please start another thread about it.

I think this is a little patetic. Wild screams about an extradiction, but not a single word about the country that actually did the torture.

Ramo, why didn't you start a thread about torture in Syria instead of yet another Bushhate tread ? You would problably get a better world if you did something to get rid of states performing torture instead of one making you feel good trying to kick at Bush.

1. I live in the US, not Syria. It's my gov't that is doing this. And it is obscene.
2. The US is a democracy. I can influence its actions by convincing other people to get rid of this program.
3. The US unquestionably has had a better gov't than than Syria. That's why its so objectionable that Bush is destroying the very things that makes our society more free.
4. It's news. Syrian torture has been going on for a while without significant change.

You are pathetic. Complaining that someone opposes torture from the United States? What the hell is wrong with you?

Actually I agree with you - people should not be extradicted to countries that are known to do torture, but as I read your OP I couldn't see anything else than yet another Bushbasher. You didn't care to think the step further that maybe it was a good idea to do something with the Syrian system, no, you were quite pleased with one more time telling that Bush is the evil.


1 : as you say, it's your country - do something

2 : do it

3 : see 2

4 : why don't you apply posters about this ?

And about your last statement, you apparently are happy if US doesn't torture but it's OK if others do it. Or rather you don't have the energy to make postings about torture in Syria because that doesn't happen to be a Bushbashing issue.

If I'm not wrong, then torture are reduced immensley im ME through the liberation of Iraq, so Bush may have done something rigth even if that hurt your PC severely.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
"in part because the government was intent on extracting information as quickly as possible, in order to prevent future attacks. Yet the more patient approach used by Coleman and other agents had yielded major successes. In the Embassy-bombings case, they helped convict four Al Qaeda operatives "


yup, the techniques to get a conviction and those to get quick info, (and quick is what you need on things like locations of individuals, money trails, plots etc - thats going to be stale after a year or so - and yes, I know thats an argument for going easier on these guys after youve had them that long) For all Colemans point on its good to have lawyers around, IIUC most prosecutors in normal criminal cases like to get confessions before the defense attorney shows up - you get a lot more that way, from tough questioning (No torture, of course). Theres also the very real concern of back bearings being taken - the interogee passes back to HQ (via the helpful attorney) the questions being asked, where this can be analyzed to see what we know. Frankly there are alot of issues here, and a real evaluation of the values of spefic techniques is going to require hearing from both sides, NOT just from those who think any coercive technique of any kind an absolute wrong.


and of course youre not likely to get the pro case from those who in the know, cause they arent interested in sharing that info - (we foiled plot x by humiliating Abdul Doe, we got items p, q and r from him, and do you have any further questions?)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'd say that excessive solitary is indeed torture. Note that there was a British case (mentioned in the other torture thread, and alluded to in this article) where a few aid workers were picked up in Afghanistan, sent to Gitmo, sent into solitary excessively. Eventually they gave in after being threatened with a year of solitary, as another has apparantly had. They gave false confessions,

Confessions? I hope the interogators arent focused on confessions, but on getting actionable intel about AQ.