![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe Lybians admit they tortured the medics they sentenced to death, and then held hostage for ransom.
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that they made false confessions as a result.
And way back when, we shipped Maher Arar to Syria, so he could be tortured (and we'd have, "clean" hands). That one was offensive on lots of levels (not least because he was a Canadian, only in the US because he had to change planes). Why? They also suggest that the investigation of Mr. Arar was prompted by the coerced confession of Ahmad Abou el-Maati, a Kuwaiti-born Canadian who was also imprisoned and tortured in Syria.
That was in today's New York Times Of note, though not at all shocking, is that the US Gov't wanted that supressed. More interesting is this, The newly released sections indicate that neither the Syrian government nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation were convinced that Mr. Arar was a significant security threat.
Yep. The FBI, and the Syrians were of the opinion this was nonsense. The CIA, it seems, had a different view.
Why? Because someone who had been tortured named him, and the CIA has people who say torture works; they may even believe it.
How does this affect the data stream in other cases?
It spoils it.
When you read the Vanity Fair article I linked to a couple of days ago, you will see that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, falsely confessed to killing Daniel Pearl.
If he was willing to make that sort of false confession, how much else of what he "confessed" to is solid information? Also on that point, how much effort has to be diverted from other things, to check out and confirm/deny the things to which he's confessed?
If we torture those whom we are questioning to confirm/deny those things, how shall we vett the information they give up?
There's a simple answer, one that's proved effective for decades, even centuries... don't torture them. The info you get is more likely to be valid; confirming/denying it will be faster/more reliable, and the problems of positive feedback decline.
It's also more likely to get information with speed, which is the most important aspect of collecting intel.
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that they made false confessions as a result.
And way back when, we shipped Maher Arar to Syria, so he could be tortured (and we'd have, "clean" hands). That one was offensive on lots of levels (not least because he was a Canadian, only in the US because he had to change planes). Why? They also suggest that the investigation of Mr. Arar was prompted by the coerced confession of Ahmad Abou el-Maati, a Kuwaiti-born Canadian who was also imprisoned and tortured in Syria.
That was in today's New York Times Of note, though not at all shocking, is that the US Gov't wanted that supressed. More interesting is this, The newly released sections indicate that neither the Syrian government nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation were convinced that Mr. Arar was a significant security threat.
Yep. The FBI, and the Syrians were of the opinion this was nonsense. The CIA, it seems, had a different view.
Why? Because someone who had been tortured named him, and the CIA has people who say torture works; they may even believe it.
How does this affect the data stream in other cases?
It spoils it.
When you read the Vanity Fair article I linked to a couple of days ago, you will see that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, falsely confessed to killing Daniel Pearl.
If he was willing to make that sort of false confession, how much else of what he "confessed" to is solid information? Also on that point, how much effort has to be diverted from other things, to check out and confirm/deny the things to which he's confessed?
If we torture those whom we are questioning to confirm/deny those things, how shall we vett the information they give up?
There's a simple answer, one that's proved effective for decades, even centuries... don't torture them. The info you get is more likely to be valid; confirming/denying it will be faster/more reliable, and the problems of positive feedback decline.
It's also more likely to get information with speed, which is the most important aspect of collecting intel.
