In a conflict (I use the term loosely) such as the ones we find ourselves in, abiding by a rigid set of rules which serve only to constrain our forces and/or intelligence agencies is only going to harm our collection efforts and, by extension, our people.

It's like sticking to Queensbury rules in a UFC match.

Let's look at international conventions

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva03.asp

Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949
...
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
...
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict...
...
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
...
Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.
...
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
...
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment...

So if you troture a POW or order to torture then you would be a war criminal.

Apropos last week's Economist carried a leader and a briefing on torture and US/UK intelligence services. Gist of it is that on the whole, torture has had a negative impact on their work as trust has been destroyed and they are slowed down by the need to check with lawyers on everything.

Leader

Briefing

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

So if you troture a POW or order to torture then you would be a war criminal.

And in a conventional war situation, I would agree with you one hundred percent, really I would. However, this is not a war, inflicting, or attempting to inflict mass casualties on a soft target is not a war (leaving aside bombings in WW2), nor is plotting to blow up hundreds of people who are on their way to work, and have no part in the conflict save that they are a citizen of that country.

Again, I would rather subject someone who is planning to carry out atrocities to a little misery (which, arguably would be a fraction of that which he/she is intending to inflict on others) in order to attempt to stop said atrocities, than have hundreds of people injured/maimed/killed.

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Torture is both sordid and inefficient; hurt someone badly enough and they will tell you whatever they think will stop the pain. This may be what they think you want to hear, rather than the truth.

The only situation I can think of where torture is justified would be where someone had been taken hostage or kidnapped and one of the terrorists/kidnappers had been captured. If it saves the victim's life, by all means get Spanish Inquisition on the bad guy.

Of course, there is a grey area between interogation techniques, like food and sleep depravation, and torture. For example, I believe the CIA classify Water Boarding as "robust interrogation"...

That was tried in Germany a few years ago when the kidnapper in a high profile case had been arrested but wouldnt tell investigators where the victim, an 11 year old boy, was. A senior officer implied "unbelievable suffering" if the kidnapper did not co-operate. Unfortunately the victim had already been murdered, the senior police officer ended up getting roasted.

Originally Posted by Dollsteeth

Whether right or wrong, id assume (unless in their personal lifes) arrsers on here,me included and by the nature of OPSEC the press will never actually know whether the torture or extreme rendition currently being used by us/the US is gleaning any viable intelligence but i would guess (and its only a guess) that such high profile organisations as CIA MI5/6 would not risk the huge potential fcuk up of this coming out (as it has) if it were not producing results to their liking?

In the US many human rights, legal, media groups, etc have seen documents under the FOI laws. Most (documents) do not support the use of torture as a means of obtaining useful, high value or immediate use int. There have also been (ongoing) Congessional investigation which have come to the same conclusion. As to the "CIA risking this coming out", they were given legal cover in order to protect individuals. This legal process specifically and deliberately excluded senior White House and State dept counsul who were known to oppose a blanket document. Another issue that should be include for the supporters of torture is that the US found it difficult to contain the methods being used to specific sites ie "black sites" and very quickly many other overt sites (Abu Ghraib?) were using methods specifically listed as torture by the US. Another aside the USA is on Canada's list of Countries that use torture routinely!. .

IMD

That was tried in Germany a few years ago when the kidnapper in a high profile case had been arrested but wouldnt tell investigators where the victim, an 11 year old boy, was. A senior officer implied "unbelievable suffering" if the kidnapper did not co-operate. Unfortunately the victim had already been murdered, the senior police officer ended up getting roasted.[/quote]

I was thinking of the Belgian peadophile/serial killer who was arrested in connection with the disappearance of two young girls. He was held for weeks and never revealed where the two girls were. By the time he was released , the two girls had starved to death in an underground dungeon.

Torture might have saved these girls lives. Of course, Belgian plod had no way of knowing wether the scumbag had actually kidnapped the girls. He was lifted on suspicion, nothing more.

As for the German copper, I'd buy him a pint and shake his hand; he might not have been able to save the kid, but he was willing to risk his own career and liberty to try. Top man.

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Torture is both sordid and inefficient; hurt someone badly enough and they will tell you whatever they think will stop the pain. This may be what they think you want to hear, rather than the truth.

The only situation I can think of where torture is justified would be where someone had been taken hostage or kidnapped and one of the terrorists/kidnappers had been captured. If it saves the victim's life, by all means get Spanish Inquisition on the bad guy.

Of course, there is a grey area between interogation techniques, like food and sleep depravation, and torture. For example, I believe the CIA classify Water Boarding as "robust interrogation"...

I am not even sure of your kidnap case, mis information can be just as dangerous, if the subject is as brutal as that form of kidnapper may well be would it not be amusing to geive you tha aparant victor false hope.

The stark reality is that people have willingly given false confessions knowing the consequences after far less robust interogation than waterboarding.

Torture and in reality 'robust interogation' is for sadists not seakers of truth, and in the wars against crime and terror we need the truth.

I must admit to a certain amount of hyprocrisy; I personally regard torture as both sordid and inefficient. And I would be suspicious of anyone who volunteered to carry out such "duties".

BUT...

I would not shed a single tear if certain people - serial killers, peadophiles etc - were abused so severly it would make a veteran of the Spanish Inquisition wince and say, "Oh, hang on, that's a bit harsh..."

I am fully aware of the hyprocrisy of my position. Mea culpa.

As to the "CIA risking this coming out", they were given legal cover in order to protect individuals.

Agree totally with your post but felt I should highlight that under todays government I very much doubt OUR Intelligence services were given a get out of jail free card for being involved in any way with such things yet they were and continue to do so. Using risk versus reward my conclusion was that the Intelligence services would not be so stupid as to continue or at least associate with a practice so controvertial (mong spelling?) if there were not gains to be had.

Again as i stated i doubt any of us will ever know (as I dont put any faith in any form of government enquiry US or UK releasing the whole story,especially if current/future ops and persec are involved) if any viable intelligence is/was garnered through torture but I dont think they would continue doing it if results werent being achieved