US 'should not rule out torture'

[Keevan_Colton]

The outgoing head of the US Department of Homeland Security has said torture may be used in certain cases in order to prevent a major loss of life.

Speaking to the BBC, Tom Ridge said the US did not condone the use of torture to extract information from terrorists.

But he said that under an "extreme set" of hypothetical circumstances, such as a nuclear threat, "it could happen".

A spokesman for Mr Ridge said his comments were taken out of context and did not amount to approval of torture.`

Mr Ridge's remarks come a day after the US was accused of eroding human rights by campaigners.

Prisoners shackled

A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised the US over the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Shocking pictures last year alerted the world to abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, and there have been numerous allegations of abuse and torture by former Guantanamo Bay inmates.

One FBI agent described in a memo seeing prisoners at Guantanamo shackled, hand and foot, in a foetal position for up to 24 hours at a time, and left to defecate on themselves.

The US defence department has announced a new investigation into the allegations.

It has condemned the abuses in Iraq and says it is prosecuting those responsible.

Mr Ridge told BBC News 24's HARDtalk: "By and large, as a matter of policy we need to state over and over again: we do not condone the use of torture to extract information from terrorists."

But he said it was "human nature" that torture might be employed in certain exceptional cases when time was very limited.

In the event of something like a nuclear bomb threat "you would try to exhaust every means you could to extract the information to save hundreds and thousands of people", he said.

'When not if'

But he admitted there was "a real question" whether using torture on terrorists would actually gain the information required "given the nature of the enemy".

He said the US did not have the luxury of knowing where and when a terrorist attack might happen.

"I don't think it is 'if'. I think it's a matter of 'when'. We operate that way," he said.

"On a day-to-day basis, not just the United States but many allies around the world, do whatever we can to share information about terrorists, share information about the kind of attacks."

Thursday's HRW report called for the Bush administration to set up a fully independent commission to investigate allegations of torture during interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

It said abuses committed by the US had significantly weakened the world's ability to protect human rights because it had undermined international laws.

Mr Ridge argued the HRW report reflected a "foreign perception" that the US was using different methods to those employed before the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Tom Ridge was speaking on BBC News 24's HARDtalk, broadcast on Friday, 14 January at 1930 GMT on BBC World and 2330 GMT on BBC News 24.

BBC

[SyntaxVorlon]

Great now I'm embarassed for being an American again.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Great now I'm embarassed for being an American again.

Is this a daily occurence for you now?

[Enforcer Talen]

Im pretending Im german these days.

[Montcalm]

Im pretending Im german these days.

Just pretend to be a Quebecer

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Im pretending Im german these days.

Do you say you don't speakee no english if anyone asks you for directions?

But on topic, this is just sickening.

[Stormbringer]

If it's a choice between the loss of American life and beating the shit out of a terrorist, guess which side I'm on. It's cold blooded, vicious, and I make no apologies for my priorities.

And frankly, I would have to question any government that would be so callous as to put abstract principle against the lives of it's citizens. Allowing a nuclear attack, or even another World Trade Center attack, simply because one won't is by far the more reprehensible.

[Enforcer Talen]

certainly - if torture can get info, its good to go.

remember tho, the real world isnt so happy go lucky as to say torture will get the info you need, stop the nuke, save the lives, or whatever the brainteaser is today. when your tortured, you'll say whatever it takes to make them stop. getting accurate info this does not make.

it causes undue pain and gains us little. why do it?

[Aaron]

If it's a choice between the loss of American life and beating the shit out of a terrorist, guess which side I'm on. It's cold blooded, vicious, and I make no apologies for my priorities.

And frankly, I would have to question any government that would be so callous as to put abstract principle against the lives of it's citizens. Allowing a nuclear attack, or even another World Trade Center attack, simply because one won't is by far the more reprehensible.

Except torture has been thourghly discredited as an intelligence gathering method. I understand that you are in favour of doing what ever it takes to save American lives, but using a method which yields false or misleading intel isn't the way to go about it.

[Axis Kast]

Except torture has been thourghly discredited as an intelligence gathering method. I understand that you are in favour of doing what ever it takes to save American lives, but using a method which yields false or misleading intel isn't the way to go about it.

That's not true in every case; especially where indepenent methods of verification exist in relation to some of the testimony of the tortured. Even many of the specific statements are varifiable, assuming you have the proper resources.

In any case, I agree that because of torture's questionable reliability, it should be a tool of last resort. But a tool nonetheless.

[Aaron]

That's not true in every case; especially where indepenent methods of verification exist in relation to some of the testimony of the tortured. Even many of the specific statements are varifiable, assuming you have the proper resources.

Well this is being sold as a method to extract information where time is of the essence. And given that torture is known to provide false intel, US agencies may spend precious time trying to verify it. And they may run out of time, if they are given false info.

In any case, I agree that because of torture's questionable reliability, it should be a tool of last resort. But a tool nonetheless.

Seeing as I don't set US polciy I will just offer my personal opinion on this. As long as it is a last resort and used in extreme situations than it may be acceptable. I'm just worried that it will become a tool that will be used immediatly. And we've seen with the Iraqi prison scandel that some US troops and agencies are more than willing to use it as a first resort.

[Durandal]

Great now I'm embarassed for being an American again.

Oh come on. He said under an "extreme set" of circumstances. If it's a ticking bomb scenario, and we've got Muhammud bin al Terrorist, who knows where the bomb is, in custody, torture is perfectly justifiable. No one's going to shed any tears because some terrorist didn't get read his Miranda rights.

EDIT: This also depends on what you define as "torture." There are many psychological ploys interrogators can use to obtain information without physically harming the subject, such as total sensory deprivation, i.e. putting the guy is a completely dark room with blaring static noise playing through speakers. From what I understand, such methods are fairly effective with both breaking a subject and obtaining accurate information.

[Aaron]

Oh come on. He said under an "extreme set" of circumstances. If it's a ticking bomb scenario, and we've got Muhammud bin al Terrorist, who knows where the bomb is, in custody, torture is perfectly justifiable. No one's going to shed any tears because some terrorist didn't get read his Miranda rights.

Are terrorists caught in the USA even entitled to Miranda rights?

[phongn]

Are terrorists caught in the USA even entitled to Miranda rights?

I'm pretty sure they would be if caught in US territory.

[Durandal]

Are terrorists caught in the USA even entitled to Miranda rights?

Doubtful. It was a figure of speech.

[Ma Deuce]

It is worth noting that at least one terrorist attack has been prevented using torture: In 1995 Operation Bojinka (a plan to blow up 11 airliners over the Pacific, which could have killed as many as 4,000 people) was thwarted when Filipino police tortured one of the conspirators into confessing the whole plan as well as ratting out his compatriarts...

[Axis Kast]

Well this is being sold as a method to extract information where time is of the essence. And given that torture is known to provide false intel, US agencies may spend precious time trying to verify it. And they may run out of time, if they are given false info.

Even in cases where time is of the essence, one usually has teams on the group as well as information-gathering tools on standby to follow up on last-minute leads. It's also one of the rationales behind having effective Homeland Security organization.

Seeing as I don't set US polciy I will just offer my personal opinion on this. As long as it is a last resort and used in extreme situations than it may be acceptable. I'm just worried that it will become a tool that will be used immediatly. And we've seen with the Iraqi prison scandel that some US troops and agencies are more than willing to use it as a first resort.

I don't think the two are related. You could have a moratorium on torture altogether. Incidents like Abu Ghraib would almost certainl still pop up.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The problem is that with a car battery and some elctrodes, I can make anyone claim responsibility for 9/11. Torture does not grant reliable information. It's actually useless in all but the 'RAWRR! HIPOTHETICAL SCENARIO!!1'-style Ticking Time-Bomb justification, which has never, to my knowledge, actually happened.

[Durandal]

Torture does not grant reliable information. It's actually useless in all but the 'RAWRR! HIPOTHETICAL SCENARIO!!1'-style Ticking Time-Bomb justification, which has never, to my knowledge, actually happened.

You can thank torture for that.

[Edi]

Are terrorists caught in the USA even entitled to Miranda rights?

Doubtful. It was a figure of speech.

Actually, they should be entitled to those. A terrorist trying to make a strike inside the US is nothing more than a criminal who tries to murder people. Tim McVeigh is a perfect example, he was a terrorist. The due process and other constitutional rights and protections that are not specifically limited to citizens automatically apply to everyone within US borders, and there is no way you can justify such terrorists as "illegal combatants".

Edi

[tharkûn]

Torture becomes the ethical choice when the harm to the individual being question plus the harm caused by blowback is less than the expected harm prevented if it works.

Other than the ticking timebomb, torture is rarely a winning bet. However that is exactly what it is: a bet. The odds are non-zero that you will get useable information out so if the stakes are high enough not torturing an individual would be unethical.

Frankly I don't give a damn about sensory deprivation, exposure to uncomfortable temperatures, or sleep deprivation ... in limited amounts. Essentially I adopt the "grunt test"; if what you plan to do is something that army grunts are expected to undergo then by all means give it a whirl if you have reason to expect a positive outcome. I reserve the word torture for something that soldiers don't experience during training.

Torture does not grant reliable information

Right all the totalitarian regimes throughout world history only used it to keep the populace in fear or to get their jollies

The truth of the matter is that if you can verify parts of the confession to avoid having the subject confess everything to end it; then torture is somewhat effective. More importantly if you do torture suspects then it is more likely that others will turn informers to avoid the possibility of being tortured; particularly if you can independently verify at least some of the information your informers give you.

Rarely does the utilitarian calculus favor torture. Most often the fact that it pisses the other side off is more than enough to eschew it, however there are extreme circumstances under which it is the ethical choice.

[Robert Walper]

Wait, I thought intelligence agencies had far moe effective methods at their disposal? Like truth drugs?

[tharkûn]

Wait, I thought intelligence agencies had far moe effective methods at their disposal? Like truth drugs?

As we all know, "truth" is a simplistic concept and our advanced brains have a receptor that will prohibit the utterance of a lie by switching a single chemical switch.

What is stocked are inhibitor drugs which reduce brain activity and make the subject more likely to talk and less likely to lie. The most famous drug, sodium pentathol, is a short term barbitute that depresses higher brain functions and if the dosage is correct makes the subject extremely likely to talk. The problem is the subject quite often babbles and says nothing of value or the dosage is too strong and the subject goes unconscious.

Let's be honest here, if the US military had a magic drug it could use to interrogate these SOB's why on earth would they bother with stress and duress? Sure you use chemicals to make the subject more likely to talk, but like torture it is a far from certain bet.

[Robert Walper]

Wait, I thought intelligence agencies had far moe effective methods at their disposal? Like truth drugs?

As we all know, "truth" is a simplistic concept and our advanced brains have a receptor that will prohibit the utterance of a lie by switching a single chemical switch.

What is stocked are inhibitor drugs which reduce brain activity and make the subject more likely to talk and less likely to lie. The most famous drug, sodium pentathol, is a short term barbitute that depresses higher brain functions and if the dosage is correct makes the subject extremely likely to talk. The problem is the subject quite often babbles and says nothing of value or the dosage is too strong and the subject goes unconscious.

Let's be honest here, if the US military had a magic drug it could use to interrogate these SOB's why on earth would they bother with stress and duress? Sure you use chemicals to make the subject more likely to talk, but like torture it is a far from certain bet.

Never said I was an expert on the issue.

[weemadando]

I love it - we shall only use torture in the case of imminent threat, all the other times we just sit back and let the Egyptians, Syrians and Pakistanis do it for us!