Torture and the Brain

[Elphaba]

Torture and the Brain

Do Americans feel moral outrage about torture? Even those who say they opposed the interrogation techniques of the Bush administration — they may have believed at an intellectual level that a wrong had been committed, but were they outraged? Were they angry?

If you’re an opponent of torture, you’re probably inclined to say yes. You were — and probably still are — furious. But a new study looking at moral outrage tells a very different story. In short, while we may think that something is immoral, we don’t feel anger about it unless it affects a group we identify with, such as someone of our own nationality.

“Pursuing moral outrage: Anger at torture,” in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (PDF here; HTML here), looked at people’s responses to fictional accounts of torture (presented as actual news reports of torture), one scenario featuring a U.S. Marine being tortured by Iraqi insurgents and the other featuring a Sri Lankan soldier being tortured by Tamil rebels.

. . . .

As a person morally outraged by torture, I have to wonder how I would have reacted to this.

Elphaba

[Dravin]

Makes sense to me. Most people would saying cheating on your spouse is morally wrong. If random Sally gets cheated on I'd agree its wrong but my emotions wouldn't get all fired up, now if my BIL cheated on my Sister then we get a lot closer to me foaming at the mouth.

Anger is a defense mechanism isn't it? One feels more obligated and inclined to protect people the closer to you they are. Personally, I don't feel that much outrage* over John Doe Marine getting tortured orr John Doe Sri Lankan. And I'm morally opposed to torture (though not say, anything a Cop could get away pulling.)

* I'm talking about a serious emotional ramp up like one would see if say, my Mom was the victim. They may be using outrage in a different sense, if they are I'm not sure exactly what way.

It’s that last part that might interest folks who are calling for the prosecution of Bush-administration officials for torture. Put simply, the mass American public is never going to support prosecuting their own countrymen for offenses against foreigners — as a matter of human nature — even if they can be convinced that the people in question acted immorally.

If it really is human nature and not a culture thing than that means this hold equally true for everyone, American, British, Canadian, Dane, Ethiopian or German. Not excusing behavior, just wonder if one of them funny furriners would comments.

Also it has some interesting implications on the psychology of Hitler's Germany, first make the Jews not German* (well, the aim was not human) then the people don't care, which if I can recall correctly is exactly what happened. Makes one ponder a bit and that's a good thing.

*Not equating to Hitler's Germany to anyone, just musing over how it relates to the article.

[bytor2112]

I am ok with extreme interrogation methods in extreme circumstances. Maybe extreme circumstances should be clearly defined, but I am definitely for doing whatever is necessary to obtain information that would keep our Country and citizens safe.

[Traveler]

I do not read Elphaba’s posts so I do not know what she said. But torture is a very interesting topic to me because I served with an intelligence unit during the Vietnam conflict. There are some things that I have come to understand about my experience.

During war military personal are expected to kill to preserve our country and it citizens. Well, how about killing someone that is unarmed and indicating they want to surrender? In Vietnam this was as likely to be a trap or ambush as it was an actual surrender. The point I want to make here is that in war time if one side is bound by rules that the other side is not – the result most likely will be that one side will have a killing advantage. The side that has the greatest killing advantage historically wins wars. If there is an exception – I have never heard of it.

Next thought. I learned that during the first about 20 minutes when someone is taken into custody is the best time to get good and vital information that is useful. If torture is to be used (physical or mental) this is the opportune time. I know this sounds horrible but if you are trying to stay alive and keep your comrades alive this is critical and may be your only chance. The problem with torture in my mind is when it is used as a means of punishment and not for information. I am all for ending torture as a means to inflict punishment but anything that limits a means to gain information is nuts, suicide and a direct aid to enemies in a time of war.

After a week in captivity torture is – without a doubt in my mind a means of punishment and psychological control and dominance. I also believe that it is easy to determine if someone is after information or inflicting punishment. Some say that torture does not produce good information. This is because they do not understand how information gathered by more than one source can be put together to create intelligence. Anyone should know that information from any single source is unreliable. They should also know that any information should be collaborated and verified before being acted upon.

It is also my opinion that no civil court should ever have jurisdiction of any military personal while they are involved in combat and that any information that is deliberately and knowingly released concerning combat situations that helps or aids the enemy should be an act of treason punishable by death.

I know this sounds harsh but I do not care what reason our country and politicians have to send our troops into combat (I call it combat because some may thing war is something else) then lets us not hold the troops accountable for trying to survive the treats the face and instead hold our politicians accountable if anybody. If we let our dogs lose let’s not get upset if they start biting someone we did not intend to be bitten especially understanding that we trained our dogs to bite anyone that threatens.

The Traveler

[jadams_4040]

As a person morally outraged by torture, I have to wonder how I would have reacted to this.

Elphaba

Well we all know how the bush administration viewed any whom did this sort of thing to americans? "they are considerd terrorists".:)

[Palerider]

When the Clinton's were in the White House and I heard them speaking that was always torture to me.....wow......:)

[Dravin]

The side that has the greatest killing advantage historically wins wars. If there is an exception – I have never heard of it.

American Services during Vietnam: ~59,000 Killed, 153,452 Wounded.

Austrilia during Vietnam: 426 Killed

South Vietnam during Vietnam: ~184,000 Killed

North Vietnam Forces during Vietnam: ~1,100,000 Killed.

Now the numbers vary depending on who you ask how you count wounded and the like, but even give or take a few its obvious they died on a much larger scale than US and allied forces . Vietnam was lost politically, not because we couldn't kill them at a greater rate then they were killing us. The Korean War also has depending on who you ask a 1:2 or 1:3 kill ratio of UN to China/USSR/North Korea (~ .5 Mil UN vs 1.2 to 1.6 mil C/U/NK) This is all wikipedia and thus subject to errors.

Of course technically they were police actions not wars and Korea ended in a ceasefire and I don't actually know what I'm talking about, I just have access to Google. :)

[Traveler]

American Services during Vietnam: ~59,000 Killed, 153,452 Wounded.

Austrilia during Vietnam: 426 Killed

South Vietnam during Vietnam: ~184,000 Killed

North Vietnam Forces during Vietnam: ~1,100,000 Killed.

Now the numbers vary depending on who you ask how you count wounded and the like, but even give or take a few its obvious they died on a much larger scale than US and allied forces . Vietnam was lost politically, not because we couldn't kill them at a greater rate then they were killing us. The Korean War also has depending on who you ask a 1:2 or 1:3 kill ratio of UN to China/USSR/North Korea (~ .5 Mil UN vs 1.2 to 1.6 mil C/U/NK) This is all wikipedia and thus subject to errors.

Of course technically they were police actions not wars and Korea ended in a ceasefire and I don't actually know what I'm talking about, I just have access to Google. :)

You are correct about many things in Vietnam. The USA could have won that conflict and ended it within months at any time. Some facts about Vietnam.

1. Vietnam had one major railroad that supplied the entire country. That railroad was never touched or damaged during the entire war. We never even tried.

2. Vietnam had one major industrial area that was never touched or damaged during the entire war. We never even tried.

3. Vietnam had 2 mayor agricultural areas that were never touched or damaged during the entire war. We never even tried.

4. The US air force developed a method to permanently shut down the Ho Chi Min trail that supplied Vietnam from China. After one week of operations the program was permanently canceled by President Johnston.

The reason we did not end that conflict was for political reasons. The sad thing that has been lost in history is why Vietnam ever became a problem in the first place.

One other interesting fact. During the 80’s I was working at Boeing on the original B1 bomber project. When we had the fly off we were able to demonstrate that the B1 could deliver a nuclear device within 3 feet of any target anywhere in the world undetected. One week later President Carter canceled the project. Years later Ragan revived the program but modified the new version to remove all the technology that allowed the B1 to avoid detection. It is also interesting to me that the B2 bomber uses alternate stealth technology that still allows detection though minimal. The technology we developed for the B1 that made it indictable has been permanently removed from the 4 original B1 bombers and scraped. The team that developed the counter measures technology has been scattered to never work together again.

The USA will never win a conflict or war with its current political landscape that believes winning is too cruel.

The Traveler

[Guest HEthePrimate]

The USA will never win a conflict or war with its current political landscape that believes winning is too cruel.

Winning is not cruel--torture is.

Why on earth would they discard stealth technology like that? You're right--that makes no sense.

HEP

[Palerider]

Thanks Traveler...

We all know how terrible war is....but...you got to have weapons...

[Elphaba]

I do not read Elphaba’s posts so I do not know what she said.

And yet you opened it, even though "Elphaba" started the thread.

I've done the same thing in the past. I blocked a person once, but the truth is, everytime she wrote a post, I really read it. After a while I realized I was being stupid, and unblocked her.

I have no doubt whatsoever you're reading this post right now.

Elphaba

Edited April 12, 2009 by Elphaba

[Traveler]

Winning is not cruel--torture is.

Why on earth would they discard stealth technology like that? You're right--that makes no sense.

HEP

My question is - where do you draw the torture line between what is and what is not torture? Detaining someone from their families is a form of torture. Trying to convince an enemy that they are wrong to be killing you could be considered torture. Any interrogating of an enemy can be argued to be torture. Separating captured enemies can be considered torture.

I would like to tell a little story. While I was attached to an intelligence unit we had a training exercise where several US pilots were dropped off in a wilderness area and our unit captured and interrogated them. There were rules in this exercise – we could not do any permanently physical damage like cut them or break bones. We could slap them but were instructed not to draw blood.

The pilots were given information that they were instructed not to divulge. The longest any of the pilots lasted in interrogation was about 20 minutes – most buckled within 5 minutes (we did not water board).

My point here is that no one should expect that we treat enemy combatants better than we treat our own during training. When someone says no torture – I believe we need to be clear what that means. I would submit that being in combat – a full blown firefight is itself torture for all involved. So if someone is completely against torture does that mean that we never return fire in combat because that could be considered torture?

The other point that I believe is most important is that we never make this a matter of political debate and political posturing. To do so I believe is subjecting our combat troops to a brand of torture and threat to what they must do to survive the horrors that they must live through. As I have stated – I do not believe in punishing the captured enemy but I do believe in interrogating them for every bit of information they have.

BTW as a side note: I would never criticize any military person for divulging any information to the enemy if they were captured.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

The pilots were given information that they were instructed not to divulge. The longest any of the pilots lasted in interrogation was about 20 minutes – most buckled within 5 minutes (we did not water board).

You know, that's kinda interesting. You have on one side a knowledge that its an exercise balanced on the other that they can't hook up the car battery.

[Aside]Actually, my BIL's father was Military Intelligence, he told a story about such an exercise and the MI guy (may have been the BIL's Father, can't remember) wasn't having much success so the instructor came in (big guy apparently) slammed both his fists down on the table between him and the pilot breaking it in half while at the same time screaming angry invective and threatening to crack him in half like he did the table, the pilot folded right then and there. [/Aside]

[Traveler]

You know, that's kinda interesting. You have on one side a knowledge that its an exercise balanced on the other that they can't hook up the car battery.

[Aside]Actually, my BIL's father was Military Intelligence, he told a story about such an exercise and the MI guy (may have been the BIL's Father, can't remember) wasn't having much success so the instructor came in (big guy apparently) slammed both his fists down on the table between him and the pilot breaking it in half while at the same time screaming angry invective and threatening to crack him in half like he did the table, the pilot folded right then and there. [/Aside]

Mostly with the pilots we simply used truth to break them down. We would take them down to our mess tent to observe the other pilots that had talked and about to go home after being fed a nice hot dinner, then we would explain that we already had all the information – so they could either spend the next 3 days on minimal rations and being sleep deprived or they could just tell us what they knew, have a nice hot dinner and go home within the hour. It was just a stupid exercise anyway – why resist when there was not any reason what-so-ever to resist. However, if they wanted to waist our time we would make the next 3 days well worth their effort. As I already said – 20 minutes was the longest anyone lasted. What took him down? The threat to have him interrogated by a female officer and leaking it to his buddies that it was her; got him to talk.

Is this torture? Actually many have criticized the USA for using sexual harassment or embarrassment as a torture method to retrieve information.

The fear about what might be done is much more effective than what is being done. One thing I think is interesting - for all the bad press the USA has taken on our methods of interrogation and treatment of prisoners during Vietnam just the threat of turning over prisoners to Turkish units (that also signed the Geneva Convention) for handling and interrogation was more feared than anything the USA ever tried. The reason this is so interesting to me is that in most cases the Turks were Islamic. Has anyone thought about even asking an Islamic country what they say and practice in their countries?

I am thinking that we might consider turning over Islamic terrorist to Turks for interrogations.

One last plea to those that do not like a particular interrogation method - would you please give an example of an acceptable method that has been historically demonstrated to be effective and more reliable than certain methods they want stopped?

The Traveler