As a child, I remember reading an illustrated version of Aesop's fable of the North Wind and the Sun. The Wind, no matter how hard it blowed, only made the woman (in the illustration I recall) clutch her coat more tightly. When the sun came out, however, it soon grew too warm and she took the coat off...thus making the Sun the winner.
Changing gears a bit...I linked to an article a while back that discussed a new way of interrogating suspects. It mentioned that "If you want accurate information, be as non-accusatorial as possible—the HIG term is “rapport-building.”
This is apparently backed up by science, whereas the classic good cop/bad cop can lead to false confessions and doesn't actually have much of a scientific basis. So why do we focus on that sort of interrogation so much?
I personally think it's about power. Control. The interrogator wants to feel like they forced someone to talk. Made them 'crack'. Overpowered them. (Though sometimes that can get used against you, as Usual Suspects illustrated so nicely).
People think that in order to get what they want it has to be difficult, a competition...one that they win. So even though you may get a better interrogation by building rapport, it doesn't satisfy as much.
Kind of reminds me of the complaints, when I was in the service, of the "kinder, gentler Army". Don't get me wrong - if being soft on recruits makes them less capable of handling the pressures of war, it's a problem. A big problem. And yet somehow this 'kinder, gentler' army fought in Iraq and Afghanistan without too many reports of cowardice or cracking under pressure. Is it because those wars weren't on the level of World War II? That intermittent mortar attacks and IEDs isn't the same as facing a constant barrage of artillery? Or were the fears of softness overblown?
I'm not trying to say any one way is right or not, to be honest. I talked about ideologies and underlying assumptions before, and I freely admit I have my own. Yet the heart of mine is that 'the map is not the territory', that all ideologies are just ways of making sense of a complex world...and that means they're always oversimplified. (If they weren't, they'd be useless). So I figure you have to consider which theory or ideology is most appropriate to the situation at hand, and shouldn't get too hung up on any particular one of them.
That said, I feel some of the arguments for harder, harsher policies are less about a sound strategy and more about emotions. Making you feel like you defeated something (or someone). Making it seem like you fought the good fight. That we have to defeat terrorism by waterboarding, for example, even though there's good reason to question the effectiveness of those techniques.
Good luck convincing anyone who supports such techniques, though. It's the kind of thing that a supporter has to buy into whole heartedly. Otherwise you'd have to consider whether or not you're a good person. You can justify harming someone if you say "it saved lives" and "it was the only way". Plus there's a healthy dose of de-humanizing. "They deserve it". "They would do worse to us if they could. They have done worse".
But if it wasn't, if there was a better way, and one that satisfied your conscience and didn't involve doing horrible things to another human being - then what does that make you?
Changing gears a bit...I linked to an article a while back that discussed a new way of interrogating suspects. It mentioned that "If you want accurate information, be as non-accusatorial as possible—the HIG term is “rapport-building.”
This is apparently backed up by science, whereas the classic good cop/bad cop can lead to false confessions and doesn't actually have much of a scientific basis. So why do we focus on that sort of interrogation so much?
I personally think it's about power. Control. The interrogator wants to feel like they forced someone to talk. Made them 'crack'. Overpowered them. (Though sometimes that can get used against you, as Usual Suspects illustrated so nicely).
People think that in order to get what they want it has to be difficult, a competition...one that they win. So even though you may get a better interrogation by building rapport, it doesn't satisfy as much.
Kind of reminds me of the complaints, when I was in the service, of the "kinder, gentler Army". Don't get me wrong - if being soft on recruits makes them less capable of handling the pressures of war, it's a problem. A big problem. And yet somehow this 'kinder, gentler' army fought in Iraq and Afghanistan without too many reports of cowardice or cracking under pressure. Is it because those wars weren't on the level of World War II? That intermittent mortar attacks and IEDs isn't the same as facing a constant barrage of artillery? Or were the fears of softness overblown?
I'm not trying to say any one way is right or not, to be honest. I talked about ideologies and underlying assumptions before, and I freely admit I have my own. Yet the heart of mine is that 'the map is not the territory', that all ideologies are just ways of making sense of a complex world...and that means they're always oversimplified. (If they weren't, they'd be useless). So I figure you have to consider which theory or ideology is most appropriate to the situation at hand, and shouldn't get too hung up on any particular one of them.
That said, I feel some of the arguments for harder, harsher policies are less about a sound strategy and more about emotions. Making you feel like you defeated something (or someone). Making it seem like you fought the good fight. That we have to defeat terrorism by waterboarding, for example, even though there's good reason to question the effectiveness of those techniques.
Good luck convincing anyone who supports such techniques, though. It's the kind of thing that a supporter has to buy into whole heartedly. Otherwise you'd have to consider whether or not you're a good person. You can justify harming someone if you say "it saved lives" and "it was the only way". Plus there's a healthy dose of de-humanizing. "They deserve it". "They would do worse to us if they could. They have done worse".
But if it wasn't, if there was a better way, and one that satisfied your conscience and didn't involve doing horrible things to another human being - then what does that make you?
No comments:
Post a Comment