"1) Coercive questioning yields reliable results which help prevent future terrorist strikes, and"

Well, there is a degree to which this is not a questionable assumption at all.  Like I said earlier, the 'usefulness' argument is dangerous to employ.  For one thing, in regards to torture, the usefulness argument is irrelevant- it is either right or it is wrong.  But there are lesser degrees of 'coercive questioning' and that they have been used, 'torture' on down,' for millenia is evidence enough that there must be a degree to which they work.  I have trouble buying the supposition as Cop suggested that all of it is merely revenge and no more.

I think the alternative assumption requires its own support:

"Ask questions. Offer incentives to cooperate. The carrot, but never the stick - not even the threat of the stick."

You mean to tell me that THIS will prevent terror attacks?  There has been a 'carrot' to the tune of 25 million dollars sitting out there for Bin Laden, and as far as I know- no takers.  What kind of carrot are you talking about here?  I'd say no to the scantily dressed interrogator too if I was expecting 72 virgins  Are you suggesting we offer up 73 virgins to really sweeten up the deal?

"2) If we don't keep projecting this tough macho image then all the terrorists in the world will know that we're really liberal sissies and bring all their friends over to kick sand in our eyes and steal our lunch money."

Well, ok.  Here's an interview with Mr. Bin Laden.  It would make me sad if you've never read this interview before.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

And here are two quotes... note this interview is from 1998.

"The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control."

That'll teach us for liberating Kuwait.  We've been out of SA since 2003, too.  Guess that was never really important.

Next quote:

"As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers."

This is just a small sampling.  The 'assumption' is not an assumption at all, but a view derived directly from the evidence, of which there is plenty- so much so that even Sam Harris, the vaunted 'religion is dangerous' man finally recognizes is in a different class.

"i'm glad that you seem to have accepted my recommendation of him, at any rate."

I don't remember any such recommendation.  I keep tabs on all the atheist bigwig wannabees.  

"i don't care whether our politicians will or will not be able to justify themselves after the next attack, so long as they act in a rational and moral fashion now."

That's fine.  I've already conceded that.  My point was that even with coercive techniques on the table things slip through.  This will continue.  MY point is that if you succeed and they act in a way you find to be 'rational and moral' now that you don't piss and moan when things go 'boom.'  I'm prepared to think that you won't- but 99% of the people having your view I am convinced will.  

"The argument you are using there could equally"

You're not grasping my argument.  My argument is that you have got to be prepared to accept the consequences of your decision.  If you get what you want, you can't be upset with the results.  We are really warming up to my other set of objections, now.

"And the question of how to deal with that problem then becomes important."

See Sam Harris.

"perhaps it would be helpful if YOU gave us a little explanation of what you think it's ok to do to make a terrorist suspect talk."

I already told you that I'm perfectly willing to live in a world where we play nice with those who wish to exterminate us.  I only ask that if you achieve that, I should similarly have the right to defend myself.  Right now its looking like you want to play nice, pretend that this will win the hearts and minds of our Wahabi friends (who mysteriously won't view this as only 'paper tiger' behavior), and then deny me the right to defend myself and my family... under the assumption, I guess, that your 'hearts and mind' strategy is going to work!

Assume it all you want!  But there's no reason you can give me why I should share in your assumption, and since you're playing with my life in this bid for 'rational and moral' behavior, you ought to at least be open to the possibility that it is not going to achieve world peace... and it may result in my local mall being attacked.  What do you want me to do then?  Call the police with my dying breath?

"'Work' is a difficult term."

But I think you know what I mean.

"Ask questions. Offer incentives to cooperate. The carrot, but never the stick - not even the threat of the stick."

You mean to tell me that THIS will prevent terror attacks?

"Good intelligence will prevent terror attacks. Humane treatment of prisoners is just the right thing to do."

There are a couple of problems here.  Let's start with the easy one.  Yes, 'humane treatment' of prisoners is just the right thing to do, but you've got humane reduced at this point so that being served cold tea could be considered 'inhumane.'   Right now we have a couple of nested hierachies...

          'Coercive interrogation'
                       |
            Inhumane treatment
                       |
                 Torture


Now, this is all equivocation...  but you've conceded that some things called 'torture' by Geneva probably aren't 'torture.'  So we can adjust our hierarchy...

    Coercive interrogation
                |
   Inhumane treatment
                |
             /     \
non-torture    torture

So we've only bumped up the matter, where at this point anything more than smiling pleasantly at the 'victim,' holding hands (if they're into that sort of thing) and singing kumbaya is coercion, ie, inhumane.   It seems to me that the hierarchy has to look like this if its going to have a chance of conforming to reality:

           Coercive interrogation
                           |
                  /             \
Inhumane treatment     humane treatment
                |                   |
             /     \
non-torture    torture              non-torture

Right now, you've insisted that all coercive interrogation should be off the table, implying that it would always be inhumane.  I can't quite agree with that, and I don't think most would.

"Lol. We can only really offer earthly rewards, i think, but tailored to the individual."

Actually I was talking about earthly rewards.  Surely if we dig young enough in our hedonistic societies we can still find 73 virgins?  

"Again, persistence and diligence in a military endeavour are not the same thing as using unpleasant interrogation techniques on prisoners."

Now we come to the question of 'good intelligence.'  This is another area that represents exactly the same sort of thing that bothers me.  But you took issue with my assumption that OBL would view weakness as an incentive to continue to press his attack, and that's what I was defending.    You have merged your two assumptions.  For the record, here they were again:

""1) Coercive questioning yields reliable results which help prevent future terrorist strikes, and"
"2) If we don't keep projecting this tough macho image then all the terrorists in the world will know that we're really liberal sissies and bring all their friends over to kick sand in our eyes and steal our lunch money."

I was keeping the assumptions separate.  You have merged them and accused me of letting OBL dictate our interrogation methods.  There is nothing about interrogation methods in your assumption #2.  Right?

So re-submit my OBL quote in defense of assumption #2 and this time I expect your acquiescence  

Now, about 'good intelligence.'  I am currently under the impression that by 'good intelligence' in relation to interrogations you mean ask questions, offer carots, never the stick, never the threat of the stick.  Well, you can guess at how effective that will be.  But other areas of the questions raise similar issues to what I've raised, too.  One of the best ways to get good intelligence is to put men on the ground and infiltrate the system and do all sorts of nasty tricks (like blackmail, etc).  The short term for this is 'humint.'  One of the first things that Clinton did in office here was cut way back on humint because it was soooooo dirty.

Now what options are available?  You've got signal intelligence and satellite imagery and things of that sort.  Based primarily on this sort of intelligence Powell went to the UN.  This was eventually characterized as a tremendous intelligence failure and we still have liberals running around accusing the President of lying.  It looks like one of them is going to be the Speaker of the House, no less.  

And this is a perfect example of the piss and moan I was referring to.  It was the DEMOCRATS that cut the military, that cut humint.  Fine, fine.  After WTC 93, two embassy bombings, the Cole, and others, 9-11 was patently predictable.  I'm still good with that, ok.  9-11 is the price we pay by playing 'nice.'  But then what happened?  When the US makes the best judgement that it can based on only kind of 'good intelligence' left at its disposal, everyone and their mother wants to jump up and down on America's face, including the American democrats that set the table for exactly this sort of outcome.

It is not nearly as distressing to me that Clinton cut the military, pulled back on humint, allowed Gorelick to create a 'wall' between the CIA and FBI, pulled out of Somalia... as it is distressing to hear these people and the ones that supported them then and now complain when they get the fruit of their behavior.  AND then accuse President Bush of all the worst moral characteristics.

Incidentally, I find it very humorous that our signal intelligence people have been mercilessly flogged as well, pretty much leaving only satellite footage as the only morally palatable way of getting 'intelligence.'  I think you and I agree that this can hardly be considered a reliable way of getting 'good intelligence,' but at this point it would seem like the only kind that you could submit to me that keeps our hands morally clean.

But then don't get irate and call people liars when they're asked to act only on that kind of information!!!!

"i'm not even sure why we're taking this tack."

Because that's my problem.  The people proposing for humane interrogation and clean intelligence gathering and deathless wars are unfathomably rude and vicious in relation to their leaders when they get their policies put into action.

"Surely the point should be to find some agreement about what would be a rational and moral way to deal with prisoners in the 'War on Terror'."

I for one am not interested in the question.  I'm perfectly prepared to give you everything you want.  I'm only asking that you don't complain when you receive the fruit of your policies.  I am prepared not to complain, provided I can compensate by defending my family.

"This Kansas City Shuffle"

There's a term I've never heard.  Wiki says it may be a song... something about football?

"routine you're doing to evade revealing your actual views (except in response to mine) is effective but frustrating."

But I've given you my actual views.  Take anything you want.  Have it all.  But don't piss and moan when you reap the consequences, and don't run around calling the political leaders liars, etc.

"Don't tell me about what i'll need to do if i get my way, tell me what your position is, because that we can actually talk about."

Well you know my position now.  You have it.  There is little more to it.

"What i'm interested in is reaching consensus about the treatment of prisoners."

Tea and crumpets a smile and kumbaya.  Yea, I'm with you.  Only the humane stuff.  Got it.  You win.  You have yoru consensus.  Also, morally pure intelligence gathering, too.  I'm sold.  Satellite photos only.  Can't do the signals intelligence here without Dems calling it 'domestic wiretapping,' so that's out of the question too.  

"and i don't recall denying you the right to defend your family because that seems to be outside this discussion (even if it does keep trying to creep in)."

You aren't denying it, but my home state is.  It isn't outside this discussion because all I'm saying is that now with your consensus in hand and your pure moral approach to prisoners, intelligence gathering, etc, I expect to have to fight in my streets in this generation, and I should think that I have the right to be allowed to defend myself and my family in that eventuality.  I am completely and perfectly willing to give you everything.  In fact, I'm willing to go further, at least in regards to the US:

Get rid of the military, end the NSA, close the CIA, depopulate the alphabet soup.  Let us bend over backwards to be 'safe' (your word) in regards to our conduct.   Do all these things, but then permit me to defend myself and my family, cuz we all know what's going to happen.  I'm not complaining about what's going to happen- and that's my other point, all I'm asking too is that if you get what you want YOU don't complain.

"i'm almost sure that you are characturing me now. i don't believe that i've advocated any better treatment for political/'WOT' prisoners than we give as standard to prisoners of our national justice systems. Point it out if i have, but i'm pretty sure i haven't."

Well, there was this exchange... I asked,

"Then let me understand you correctly: its your position that there should not be any kind of interrogation whatsoever. Does this position extend to both civil and military affairs?"

You said:
"Shouldn't it?"

And so I took you at your word that you considered being interviewed by a woman to be potentially degrading and psychologically devastated and that you have to take into account these things, for example.  But then this ought to extend into civil courts, right?  I'm arrested for such and such crime, but of fear of long term psychological damage I ask not to be interrogated or presented with anything other than bon bons.  Why not?  

The confusion lies, I think, in what seems to be a shift but is probably just inaccuracy in your position.  You are saying that you want these 'victims' to be treated in the same way we treat our 'victims' in our civil courts, but then you use some of the worst examples.. ie, simulated drowning.  But my question was:  " its your position that there should not be any kind of interrogation whatsoever. ?"  This question came in the context of my expression of confusion about your term 'coercive interrogation,' which you have already said should be excluded completely, but apparently takes issue even with tea and crumpets, if the person thought it to be psychologically damaging.

So, I really don't know what your position is.  I asked you if you thought all forms of interrogation should be off the table, you said yes.  I asked if you thought this should extend to both civilian and military contexts, you said yes.  You have included even some of the most benign methods as 'coercive,' earning for myself the label 'dumbass.'    So, in this mix, its not a surprise to me that I wouldn't know where you stand.

As if simulated drowning was the only way we could interrogate- but you have said all interogation should be off the table.

"i don't think Geneva calls them torture,"

I'm too lazy to look it up.

"i wish i could understand your nested hierarchies, because they seem like a very good idea. But i dont. Can you make them clearer?"

Again, my laziness problem.  Let me try the non-graphical approach.  Right now, we have 'torture' firmly within the realm of 'inhumane' interrogation.  'Inhumane interrogation' would be one category within 'corecive interrogation.'  But 'humane interrogation' is also within the category of 'coercive interrogation.'  By saying that all coercive interrogation is off the table, that includes also the 'humane interrogation' thus making the only plausible conclusion be that you can't even talk to the chaps.

That seems absurd to me, and even now I don't believe that is your position, but then when you couple that with your response to whether or not b]any kind of interrogation[/b] it looks like that is in fact what you are advocating.

For example even in your latest post:

"i don't know whether i think that all coercive questioning is inhumane, just to take slight issue with you there, but i do think it all should be banned largely because it tends to lead to things which are definitely inhumane."

The only escape from all of this would be to somehow give me an example of a set of methods that is non-coercive, which presumably does not contain any 'inhumane' methods in it.  So far, you've answered:

"Ask questions. Offer incentives to cooperate. The carrot, but never the stick - not even the threat of the stick."

Not only do I think it obvious that this won't be effective with those with martyr complexes, I think that it will take all the wind out of popular police television programs which almost always inevitably have an interrogation (like the one I watched tonight) when they said, "If you don't tell us what you know, we're going to stick YOU with the charges."  That sounds like a stick to me, and like 'coercive interrogation.'

And off the table, apparently.

"i also take issue with the suggestion that respect for the human rights of prisoners is akin to weakness"

I was not making that suggestion- it arose out of your bundling of two assumptions you asked me to speak to individually.

"Yes, i can see how that was confusing. i would say that the macho image does have an indirect bearing on the treatment of prisoners, because it ties in with a reduced concern for their well-being."

Well, this is just hogwash.  Let's take this as the stepping stone:

"OBL says that America are paper tigers, Bush wants to look tough this time, he says a lot of messianic crap dotted with the occasional cowboy reference, the troops take the point, people get abused. That would be the link, but i agree it's not direct."

Not only is it not direct, but its a fabricated link to begin with.   Let me say in the first place that the argument is a fair slap in the face to the US military, which I would have to suppose would be filled with fairly stupid people.  I mean really, they hear Bush say "Dead or alive" and you think that they, or any of them, really take this as some sort of blank check?  There are all sorts of laws and codes and requirements that American servicemen have to follow and even if some of them are as dumb as this tenuous link would require, they have these requirements pounded into them.

But the 'link' fails in another important respect, too.  We can go through the history of modern warfare and we'll always be able to find instances like Abu Ghraib.  Now, in the US, when that sort of thing happens, there does tend to be investigations and consequences, as opposed to in other places.  But that's still not my point.  Eisenhour and Roosevelt were not filled with 'messianic' utterances, and they didn't have 'cowboy' attitudes, but there can be little doubt that there were abuses during ww2.  You just brought this up in your argument about the allies loooking past their own war crimes.  Where is the 'link' here?

There isn't one, because people generally aren't that stupid.  Fair or unfair, they also tend to know that the generals will get away with it but the soldiers will be left holding the bag, so their best off toeing the line.

""So re-submit my OBL quote in defense of assumption #2 and this time I expect your acquiescence""

"*shrug* i'm not convinced. Your point seems to me to be only of limited relevance and where it is relevant it's wrong."

That's because you are conflating the assumptions again, whereas I was only defending the one assumption.  However, I'm going to also re-submit Sam Harris to you.  You really can't sit down and read the output from the global islamic community and not get this message.  Sam Harris understands that.  Sam Harris broke with his liberal friends to make the argument.

I'm willing to leave it at "Sam agrees with me" because I know that even if I fished out a hundred quotes, you're still more likely to believe him than me.

"Sure. If by 'effective' you mean in terms of extracting confessions and intel (reliable or otherwise) from prisoners, i agree, it's not going to do that."

I would say that if by 'effective' you have even the most minimal expectations, like "the prisoner will look at me nicely and without contempt" it won't be effective.

"Perhaps we'd better not get back into the 'evidence justifying the war' debate, because i have to sleep sometime."

I'm not debating the evidence- I'm saying that if you're going to be 'nice' and 'moral' across the board you have to recognize that you have limited avenues to gain intel.  And you shouldn't jump up and down on the faces of politicians who have been asked by their constituency to restrict themselves to those measures.

That is why even though you made some concessions about the spying thing, I still don't think you're off the hook.  In previous conversations you pointed out that Saddam was much a man of our making, and the Iranian mess, too.  Yet, interacting with Saddam was not done in a vacuum.  Difficult decisions had to be made.  Russia was at Iran's back, and at that time, Egypt's, posing a threat to not just Iraq, then, but also Kuwait, SA, and even Israel.  Similarly, much hey has been made about the CIA's influence in Iran back in the 50s, but it is often completely overlooked that the USSR was working its own agenda, too.   If the CIA had not been involved, the KGB would have.

Now, am I saying that the CIA should have been involved or that we should have supported Saddam against Iran?  No.  I'm saying that the world is filled with difficult moral decisions, where sometimes to do nothing at all is to commit oneself to a potentially immoral course of action.  If the Soviets had come to dominate the Middle East, they'd still be in power today, and millions would be living in oppression.  I take this to be a certainty.

Do we take that in the balance with what our leaders have done?  No.  But I can tell you for certain that if the Soviets had succeeded- there is a large element of the American public at least that would have pissed and moaned to no end, forgetting that they had insisted that the US take the moral high road.  Well, that's the price.

Now, you think this is all irrelevant to the torture thing.  Perhaps it is to you, but as I've tried to make plain, I'm perfectly happy to insist we all take the moral high road.  I also expect that we will be taken advantage of if we do that.  I know that if we take all coercive interogation off the table and play international games with sparkling morality, this will not in the slightest change the target of these Muslims we are speaking of, and also not the views of leaders in places like North Korea and Venezuela.

Your response to this is that this is far fetched, and it would not happen.  Good for you if you're right!  But if you're not, all I'm asking is that you don't complain if (when) you're shown to be wrong.

"Bush's war drum since he was elected"

Sure, like how we vamped up for war against China after it downed and captured one of our spy planes operating in international waters.  I'd forgotten about our neo-con war with China.

"Ok, fine. So you agree with me to campaign for an end to coercive questioning and no more opportunistic exemptions from international law, and i promise not complain afterwards. Is that the end?"

Pretty much, although I suspect you'll want to distance yourself from the lingering suspcion that 'coercive questioning' can even involve denying breath mints (long term psychologically damage- in their culture) or threatening to file charges (sticks) to try to persuade someone to talk, etc.

"i hated 'Kumbaya' in school."

I hate it now.  :)

"But you understand that the 'if we aren't allowed to do X then there'll be anarchy/fighting on the streets/Communists on every street corner' argument (if i can call it that) has been applied by reactionary conservatives to almost every subject imaginable, from drilling Alaska to cutting welfare to banning trouser-wearing by women."

That reminds me of a hypothetical debate in a hypothetical city not too long ago where it was argued that since crime had been reduced to 3%, they could disband the police department.  Your denigration of this argument fails to take into account the conditional.  IF.  If you don't have a police force, crime WILL go up.  We don't have anarchy/fighting on the streets/Communists on every street corner BECAUSE somebody somewhere DID something.  

"AND what your home state does has zero relevance to my argument."

It is relevant insofar as you have agreed to not complain when you achieve your goal, but I'm only willing to go along with your hopeful vision that the complete and utter elimination of ALL interrogation methods (I'm not sure if you really mean ALL or only coercive ones, or if there is even a difference) will have no effect on the number of instances of threats that have actually manifested, provided that in exchange for this I don't have to share your optimism and I don't have to remain disarmed as we see which prediction is right.

Here's some bedtime reading for ya Johnnyboy.  i just finished 'Unspeak' by Stephen Poole, which is a very interesting book, and one section bears so directly on our discussion here that i thought i'd copy it out for you.  Only took me an hour or so. :)

It should be obvious that i agree with pretty much everything he says here on the subject of the violence done both to prisoners and to the English language in the name of the 'war on terror'.

---------------------------

REPETITIVE ADMINISTRATION

In December 2002, two prisoners at the US base in Bagram, Afghanistan, died after trauma to their legs of such severity that the coroners compared it to the results of being run over by a bus.  The subsequent official investigation was nothing if not creative.  The death of one was explained in this way:

And the weeks go by...

Tell me that you've read this Tony - i think it's really worthwhile.

Received my copy of Fidelis today, many thanks.

Dan

Helpful here would be a definition of 'torture.'   As I understand it, the highest 'official' degree of torture allowed by the US (now... I know that there was recently a revision) is water boarding.  Now, a reporter for Fox News went through water boarding and had it recorded.  Granted, he only made it to step 3, but he had some insightful comments on it.  I also know that American airmen are subjected to water boarding and other measures so that they will know what to expect if they are downed behind enemy lines.  Insofar as anything more severe than this may be addressed in your definition, its a moot point to the degree that Americans shouldn't by their own law be allowed to do more.  They ought to be held accountable for the violation of the law.

I am not prepared to consider being forced to listen to Brittany Spears at loud volume for long periods of time is 'torture.'  Also, being put naked in a cell, and uncomfortably cold conditions, and sleep deprivation.  Yea, ok, this is all nasty stuff.  Psychologically, I may wish to hang myself if I have to listen to Brittany, but I won't, and the effects will probably last.  And yet these measures would be included in the UN's definition of 'torture,' and forbidden.

Waterboarding is a pretty nasty, nasty method of torture.  Watch the Mythbusters episode where they water torture Kari.  It was bad.

The biggest problem with actually using any form of torture to corerce information from someone is the likelihood that they will tell you whatever it is that you want to hear to get the torture to stop.  Another danger is that the interrogator will twist any answer they get to support his own beliefs and opinions.

Sntjohnny is a little too quick to dismiss some of the more "psychological" methods as somehow not being as "bad" as the more physical ones.  I have to disagree.  Sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, disrupting someone's internal clock are all fairly standard and effective means of torture.  You can do massive ammounts of psychological damage to someone using them.

I would, if I could, vote "Maybe" like Johnny said. Alas, 'tis not an option.

When considering torture, however, for the extraction of an honest answer, one should remember that a tortured person might lie to get out of their predicament.

Needless to say, I disapprove passionately of torturing just to get the answer you want to hear...

While i'm waiting for you to respond, let me draw your attention to this Amnesty International report: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004

i dont know how much significance you attach to this, but it supports several of the points i have made.

"It is tragic that in the 'war on terror', the USA has itself undermined the rule of law. Its selective disregard for the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law has contributed to torture and ill-treatment,"

"The torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees by US agents in Abu Ghraib prison was -- due to a failure of human rights leadership at the highest levels of government -- sadly predictable,"