"American Technology Makes Torture Obsolete"

Imagine the pride we could have in good old-fashioned American ingenuity with a headline like that, splashed across the corporate media machine.  If only Americans were smart and creative enough to create a technology that produced 100% accuracy in lie detection.

For several years, I have seen stories pop up now and then regarding "brain fingerprinting."  It's an American-made technology that....um...produced, like, 100% accuracy in lie detection.

But while they touch on the potential for suspect interrogation, Fifth Amendment issues are what have dominated the focus of most of these articles.  My question: if we already have the ability to make torture obsolete, then why hasn't brain fingerprinting even been sniffed at during the torture debates?

I am just as concerned as any alert American about the erosion of my Constitutional rights over the past six years.  But if this FMRI technology does consistently produce flawless results, then why does our government insist on using techniques that have been scientifically proven to be ineffective?  What is the upside to mimicking the Spanish Inquistion, the Nazis, or the Khmer Rouge?

"Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" was covered here in 2006 by diarist intrepidliberal.  If I may indulge in a Cliff Notes version: a brain scan measures activity in the brain.  When you try to cover something up, a certain pattern of brain activity follows.  One can beat the obsolete Polygraph test, but one cannot fool one's own brain.  Intrepidliberal also points out that the technology is already in use in India for many purposes, including early detection of Alzheimer's.

According to Wikipedia:

Despite claims of high accuracy, Farwell's "brain fingerprinting" technique has been criticized on a number of fronts [1] most notably in a number of papers by J. Peter Rosenfeld of Northwestern University. [2] Contrary to research by Farwell and others suggesting that brain fingerprinting has a 100% accuracy rate, research by Rosenfeld and others has suggested that, in the presence of learned countermeasures, the wider class of P300-based tests, which includes the brain fingerprinting technique may give results close to those obtained by chance.[3]

If "learned countermeasures" are the only thing standing in the way of FMRI's reliability, then I'm sold.  What is the countermeasure for waterboarding?  Lying.  Telling your torturer whatever the hell he or she wants to hear in order to spare one's own life.  Oh, and by the way, how many al Qaeda members do you think have the remotest clue what these learned countermeasures are?

Pardon the obvious, but this is a no-brainer.  If I am on trial for my life (assuming we still have the right to a trial in the future), I want the FMRI as an available option.  I want to clear my name, right?  I know I'm innocent, but apparently no one else does.  GIVE ME THE DAMN BRAIN SCAN AND LET ME PROVE IT.  You don't need to simulate my drowning death to get accurate information.  I have a right to remain silent, I have the right to an attorney, and I have a right to clear my name in whichever manner the court finds admissible.  (And that ain't a Polygraph.)

We could be the beacon of the world, showing off how our greatest asset--Americans--found a way to forever abolish and render useless an archaic, barbaric, and ineffective method of interrogation.  Tonight, Keith Olbermann's Special Comment focused on Daniel Levin, who volunteered to undergo waterboarding in order to properly define whether it was torture.  His "Yes" was the end of his employment.  As a part of their training, police officers must be jolted with tasers before they can use them on suspects.  I believe every member of Congress and the Executive Branch who supports and defends waterboarding should have the courage to do when Levin did, and undergo waterboarding before they cast their vote on whether or not it is torture.
 
It has become apparent to me that the current Administration and the Democrats who enable them have no creativity, no awareness of the 21st century, and no clue whatsoever that torture is terrorism.  If the only obstacle to implementing the FMRI "brain fingerprinting" is the Fifth Amendment, then this Administration would have been using it from the start, that much is obvious.  What I am unclear on is what general malfunction our government has considering its sick obsession with obsolete sadomasochism.

•  Thank you for reading

  Obviously, the Rule of Law would have to be instated first, but really.  It should be debated.  I'm in California, so I'm writing to Dianne Feinstein.

  by captnjaq on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:22:34 PM PDT

  •  technical information and implications...

    The P300 "evoked potential" wave, is a signal that occurs in the brain when an individual recognizes a stimulus as matching a memory.  

    For example, two robbery suspects are shown a slide show consisting of pictures of people.  Each of the suspects' brains will respond with a P300 wave when s/he recognizes a person in a photo.  

    The robber will recognize the photo of the victim, because s/he remembers the victim's face from when s/he committed the robbery.  The innocent suspect won't remember the victim's face because s/he has never seen the victim before.  The robber's tests will reveal the P300 signal matched up with the photo of the victim; the innocent person's tests will show no such pattern.

    So.

    Do we really want this?  

    First of all, it's not a blanket form of mind-reading.  All it can do is what I just described above.  However, a well-constructed test can gain all manner of inferential information about an individual's beliefs and experiences.  

    Second, if it was an effective form of mind-reading, do you really want that?   At present we can't pull memories out of the brain; by analogy the brain's memory storage system is like an encrypted hard drive except that it appears to be holographic which makes it even more difficult to extract information from.  

    However in the future it may become possible to extract information from the brain.  Do you really want "them" reading your mind?  In all due detail, including the first time you had sex, and the last thing you discussed with your spouse before you were shipped off for interrogation...?  All of your memories, your feelings about same, your attitudes...?

    Third, if this stuff becomes admissible in court and goes into general use, there will be pressure upon suspects generally to use it to prove their innocence.  Yes, prove their innocence.  It will be the end of the presumption of innocence and the beginning of the presumption that you're guilty if you don't volunteer to have your mind read by a machine.  

    Next, think of other applications for this stuff.  Are you looking for a job?  Looking for a mortgage?  Looking to get a TS clearance?  Looking for health insurance?  And if you don't think it's going to happen, consider the routine ritual to which many employees in America are subjected, of having to pull down their pants for their boss' surrogate, display their "private" parts, give a working demonstration of said parts, and leave behind a cup of liquid from which a goodly amount of information can be extracted about their medical history.  The only thing worse is when "they" can get into your brain.  

    What needs to happen:  This needs to be strictly outlawed for all purposes other than research and medical diagnostic testing.  Across the board.  Period.  Those who trade liberty for a bit of security, including the security of knowing they can spring themselves if falsely accused of a crime, are not only cowards, they are traitors, and they deserve exactly what they're going to get.  

    by G2geek on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:13:57 PM PDT

•  Why do they torture?

  Because they are sociopaths and sadists, that's why.

  by JeffW on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:23:37 PM PDT

•  If logic leads you to contradiction, question ...

  ... your givens.

  My question: if we already have the ability to make torture obsolete, then why hasn't brain fingerprinting even been sniffed at during the torture debates?

  Because "getting information" is not why we torture, nor what torture is about.

  It's a lie the thugs let unsophisticated people bruit about.  Lying serves their ends.

  Torture is about power.  We torture not only because we can (and get away with it), but also to show that we can, and get away with it.

  Note that torture never is a kept secret.

  Torture is a message sociopathic regimes deliver to people they wish to subjugate.  The US is ruled by a sociopathic regime.

  Note too that torture always accompanies the emergence of the wakening police state.   Police states need torture (its an efficient means of control).

  Police states are, of course, all about destroying freedom, liberality, knowledge.  That is one of the reasons the BushCheney regime barks about "freedom" all the time.  Their version of the future offers precious little in the way of freedom none, unless you are one of the pigs who is more equal than the others..

  by Yellow Canary on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:33:27 PM PDT

  •  it's like shooting someone's kid...

    ..to get their attention.

    The home-invasion robbers show up and the first thing they do is shoot the victim's kid.  At this point they have demonstrated that there is no limit to their depravity, and so their victims quiver and cower and do whatever they're told.  

    Beyond that it's about "you didn't challenge me when I stepped way over the line, so you're not going to challenge me when I take a whole bunch of steps each of which is just a little over the line."  

    It demonstrates not only power over the torture victims, but the ability to paralyze those who might exercise checks & balances: if they didn't impeach over that, they're not going to impeach over a bunch of other things that are hardly as viscerally outrageous.  

    Think also about street gang initiations:  "now that you've committed your first drive-by shooting in the name of the gang, you're ours for life."  

    Selling one's soul to the devil also comes to mind.  Once sold for cheap, it's impossibly expensive to buy it back later.  

    by G2geek on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:00:03 PM PDT

    •  Torture is forced brain-washing, both at ...

      ... the level of the individual, and the level of the body politic.  It rivets us, in a specific way.

      by Yellow Canary on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 06:03:53 AM PDT

•  Bush tortures to prove he's tough...

  he was humiliated in college and the Air National Guard so now he's proving to the world that he's a tough guy by using torture.

  His 33% base loves torture as much as they love capital punishment. Poor Rethuglicans need torture and other thugish tactics for the same reason rich Rethuglicans need money - for self-validation. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.

  by Eirik Raude on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:55:17 PM PDT

•  100% accurate detection is impossible

  At least in my opinion. But yeah, I do think the most accurate lie detection equipment possible would be a great help.

  On a side note, there's a Specialist who works in my office who's an Arabic translator. He's originally from Jordan, so he's obviously fluent in Arabic. He's been deployed to Iraq and has worked both, on the front lines, and in (what he called a "jail") for interrogation.

  I learn as much as I can from him. Serving in Iraq does give some insight about many things. But being familiar with the culture and the language, and even participating in interrogation does give him a unique perspective. I've learned a lot from him.

  I've never been assigned to a detention facility, nor have I been involved in interrogations. I talked to him about the torture controversy. Due to security reasons he's not allowed to go into any detail, but as far as torture goes, his reply was "that's bullshit". He said it's obviously not the Hilton but nothing like the stuff I described.

  Now I don't know exactly which facility, where, what or why. And I would never ask him to give out details he's not allowed to give. But his consensus was they're generally well treated in the place(s) he's seen.  There's no denying the photos that were released, and certainly there can't be so many first hand accounts without (at least) some of them being true.

  Me and him have a pretty close working relationship and I don't have any reason to question his integrity. The pictures I saw from Abu Graib looked to me like bored, undisciplined soldiers with no supervision. If I was ever ordered to torture I would refuse and report it. In discussions with other soldiers they have said the same.

  My experience is lacking because, as I said, I've never worked as an interrogator nor have I ever worked in a detention facility. But based on what I know and the people I know, I don't think torture is as widespread as many believe.

  by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:08:57 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    that 100% accuracy is still not possible.  But I agree more with Yellow Canary above.  

    Regardless, it does not matter one bit how widespread it is.  If it is happening anywhere, it is illegal.
     
    Furthermore, we have a President who is willing to nominate an Attorney General candidate who does not have the courage to define whether or not waterboarding is torture.  They are fighting to make this part of American foreign policy.  That's profane.  

    I keep waiting for a torture advocate to cite some statistic on the accuracy of information gathered from waterboarding, or any other form of torture.  I'd like to see it go up against an FMRI.  That's a starting point in the debate I'd like to see.

    by captnjaq on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:31:28 PM PDT

    •  No problem with anything you said.

      I'm just careful with my words on here. Article 88.

      Speaking of which, are/were you a Jag officer? I'm referring to your screen name.

      by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:37:50 PM PDT

      •  Ah, I gotcha.

        And I do hope you're right that it's not widespread!

        And no, but thanks for the chuckle. :)  Screen name comes from the Billy Joel song, "Captain Jack."  Live versions especially bad-ass.

        by captnjaq on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:54:00 PM PDT

  •  for more about interrogators...

    Lookup the website of the US Marine Corps Interrogator/Translator Teams (USMC/ITTs).  Some of the folks on the site are WW2 vets.  One has written an essay against torture that was first posted on the site a few years ago.

    Very intersting stuff, purely as military history, plus of course the implications relative to our present circumstances.  

    by G2geek on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:16:44 PM PDT

•  why DO they torture?

  Neither stupidity nor sadism.  And it doesn't have anything to do with trying to prevent another 9/11.

  No, it's simpler than that.  It has a twofold benefit to those doing the torturing:

  1.  Their base, a collective bunch of immature psychopaths who need a daddy to protect them, love it.  Wouldn't you have loved it if, as a kid, your dad went out and beat up those who you didn't like?  Of course.  Same mentality at work, here.

  2.  For the rest of us, who are adults, it scares us shitless.  Anyone who would disregard such basic human decency in a manner such as we witnessed in Abu Ghrahib, or in the manner published in the interrogation diaries of Khalid, well, they could do anything, couldn't they?  They insist they can do it to American citizens, even.  And so, indirectly but in the most threatening way possible, they've let us all know they could do it to us.  Kinda cuts down a little on that urge to rebel, doesn't it?

  Win-win, except for us...and we don't count.

  by arbiter on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:46:27 PM PDT

•  BTW, +1 for this Diary!

  In the midst of all the criticism out there it's great to have fellow Democrats/liberals who offer constructive suggestions. It shows that we DO care about getting accurate and timely information that could potentially save lives.

  This site is full of "you suck!" but IMO not enough calm, rational and productive ideas.

  I would like to see more of these types of diaries on the recommended list. Emotional rants have their place, but they seem to take priority.

  Just my two cents.

  by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:53:49 PM PDT

  •  in fact...

    ...we already have effective ways to get intel from detainees.  See also the US Marine Corps Interrogator/Translator Teams website.  Among other things, WW2 vets talking about how they got the goods from uncooperative Japanese POWs who were fanatically devoted to their Emperor.  

    We don't need a fancy mind-reading machine, especially in the hands of an administration with the present track record.

    What we need is a skilled and trained corps of interrogators who can do what their predecessors did, using the same methods their predecessors used.  Those methods still work.  And the methods presently being used aren't working any better than they worked in the old days, which is to say, not very well.  And we need translation capability within the forces, rather than being subcontracted via the usual companies to locals who can't be adequately screened and often turn out to be spies.  

    (Here's an example for you: Iraqi national, working on base, including in secured areas, was found taking GPS readings on various points around the base.  Now why do you suppose he wanted GPS readings?  Maybe so his pals outside could target their mortars more effectively...?  Now figure this type of character into the translation contractors and you have a first-class intel leak who is also in a position to report to his pals the names of detainees who were cooperating with 'the great satan."  So that his pals can wreak vengeance upon the cooperative detainees' families.  Smart choices, eh?)

    BTW, re your Sec 88 item, if it's the one I think it is, a) "reasoned criticism stated in careful language" is not the same thing as b) "expressions of contempt" or c) "loss of faith in the chain of command or the CinC."  (a) is within range of permissible speech for officers and enlisted.  (b) is grounds for court martial.  (c) is grounds for forfeiture of one's commission.   Check with your local JAG about this, but I know people who have gone quite a ways under (a) without crossing into (b) or (c).  

    by G2geek on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:14:56 PM PDT

    •  The 09L Program

      The US Army is actively seeking qualified applicants who speak the common middle eastern languages, such as Arabic, Farsi, etc.

      Unfortunately there's just not enough Arabic speakers. When I was in Baghdad we had one guy come to us with information, but he refused to have an Iraqi translator brought in. It had to be an American, Arabic speaking Soldier. And that's understandable. Using Iraqi civilians puts us at risk for moles, and puts the translators themselves at risk.

      by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:23:43 PM PDT

      •  oh, we had quite a few...

        ...and fired a bunch of 'em because they turned out to be gay.

        (Go look it up and read it for yourself.)  

        If ever there was a shoot-self-in-foot maneuver, that one certainly qualifies.

        BTW, NSA's rules re. gay civilian employees are: don't discriminate, do tell the truth.  Gay employees have to disclose to family and close friends in order to prevent a "secret" about their sexuality being used by hostiles as a basis for extortion.  

        If it works in a place where everyone including the custodians has a TS clearance, it can work in the regular Army.  

        And I just hope those fired translators got decent job offers on the civilian side of the agency.  

        by G2geek on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:31:13 AM PDT

        •  What's quite a few?

          2, 10, 100? I know about two from the news, perhaps there were others. I highly doubt we were well staffed and then 'gayed' our way to being under staffed.

          The DADT policy isn't set by any military branch. It's imposed on all the military by civilian leadership.

          Case in point... a lot of gay activists will go into recruiting offices with recording devices, say they want to join and then announce they're gay. When the recruiter informs them they can't process they report "discrimination!".

          Fair enough. It's not the fault of the recruiter for following the rules. But there was one case I know of where the recruiter said, "I didn't hear that" and they reported that as well. They basically dimed him out for being willing to look the other way. Kind of counter productive to their cause, wouldn't you say?

          You can't blame the military for a policy they don't control. And you can't blame its members for enforcing it.

          by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:40:22 AM PDT

          •  oh, I don't blame the military...

            ...for following the orders of the civilian leadership.  IMHO it's one of our strengths that we have a professional military rather than a politicized military.  

            I blame the civilian leadership for 100% of the fiascoes we have gone through in the war, including firing linguist/translators.  If I'm not mistaken, the case I'm aware of was something like 8 out of a group of 16.  Arabic, Farsi, and Korean, among others.

            As for gay activists going into recruitment meetings with tape recorders, that's just plain wrong and frankly disgraceful.  The way to deal with the policy is to bug the civilian leadership about why we are turning away 5 - 10% of the potential enlistees over an issue that most soldiers decided didn't matter long ago.  "What matters isn't who they sleep with but how they do their job and how they perform under fire."  I'm sure you've heard people say that more than once.  It's time for the people in Washington to get the message.

            Here's another one for you.  The rates of pay for linguist/translators used to be higher for difficult languages, e.g. where there is a different alphabet, or where it's a pictographic language such as many of the Asian languages.  About five years ago the policy was changed to make it the same for "difficult" languages as for "easy" languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, and German, that people might have picked up from their families or friends or learned in high school.  You can bet this was a major disincentive to people to learn difficult languages.  

            Following that logic they shouldn't pay cryptanalysts more than collectors, heh.  

            What worries me is, if America concedes the losses in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of the citizens will blame the military rather than the civilian leadership.  That would be majorly demoralizing and could set the stage for further erosion of both American influence abroad and of the Constitution at home.   You & yours don't deserve that kind of crap.  We need an accountability moment for the draft-dodgers who have been running the show on the civilian side.  

            by G2geek on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:56:27 PM PDT

            •  Thank you very much

              For having a true understanding of our military and its role. Many of the posts and diaries on here seem to have a negative view of the military and it's mostly based on false perceptions.

              I'm a social and fiscal libtard to the bone. But I'm also an alpha male, pro-military "America @#$% yeah!" kind of guy.  

              by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 06:59:58 PM PDT