4 ms·

Good grief, there wasn't a way to give them a fast and painless death? Or even moderately painful?

DocTomoe 4y ago
I guess you don't want that, because it may give people too much of an easy way out, giving up too soon when survival was still preferable for mission success.
- Gys 4y ago
  That would not be my guess. From the state point of view keeping secrets might be much more important than one life.
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    Plus, the last thing the State would want is for their asset to have second thoughts about taking the suicide pill─“They may torture me soon and it will probably be extremely painful... but the pill will certainly be extremely painful! Maybe I should risk it”
    - hericium 4y ago
      Were the agents told that the death will be painful? I believe that organization such as the CIA would rather lie to its own agents to make sure they would poison themselves.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      I am sorry this thread is ridiculous. First, if they are detained, they will be strip searched long before any torture takes place. You either take it early or not at all - odds are everything will be taken away. Second, the last thing you want in such situation is ambiguity - people don't just commit suicide willy-nilly. Instructions must be very clear. Thirdly, either the agent has secret information that cannot be divulged, or they don't. This is known upfront before the mission. Any agent at high risk of capture is kept away from sensitive information, to minimise possible damage. Every spy and reconnaissance organisation work like that. As soon as agent is captured, damage control is put in place. Lastly, orders to commit suicide are not legally possible.
      - hericium 4y ago
        > Lastly, orders to commit suicide are not legally possible. You do realize that we're talking about the CIA here, right?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        What are you gonna do, threaten the guy with Death? :)
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        "If you do not comply with our request for your suicide, we cannot guarantee the safety of your children, Samantha, currently in 3rd grade in Glaveston Primary, and John, named after your father, who is a star quarterback on Washington High's team. We trust you do what is necessary."
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        This is over the top even for the CIA, but they were definitely capable of being monsters. In the case of Gary Powers the agency fought hard to avoid a prisoner exchange and even internally claimed he had defected intentionally. His wife was even committed to a psychiatric institution: not so much to threaten Powers, but just to keep her from embarrassing the agency with her drinking. Ultimately they went ahead with the exchange partly out of fear that Powers would learn what they’d done to his wife.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        If they did so, who would ever agree to go on a mission like that or join CIA at all? We are talking about US citizens for whom this is a job, they are not like foreign prisoners. CIA -agents are 'one of their own'. This is like Taliban-level stuff
        Viliam1234 4y ago
        > If they did so, who would ever agree to go on a mission like that or join CIA at all? This assumes the others would know that it happened. Who would tell them? Certainly not the guy who complied with the request for suicide.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I assume the suicide option is an option for the prospective torturee - not for the agency. If the pill causes pain, that's an unwanted side-effect. It's unlikely to be as painful as the actions of your torturer, whose goal is to cause as much pain as possible, and who may also want to stretch it out for weeks. And there's a good chance your torturer will kill you anyway. Sometimes torture is used for punishment or repression, not to obtain information. Arguably that's always the purpose; "information" obtained through torture isn't very reliable.
    - 3pac 4y ago
      The psychological pain (weight) of even carrying such a suicide pill/coin as part of your mission pack-out. Perhaps the person has a strong Judeo-Christian belief that God finds suicide and self-harm abhorrent. Or "Dr. Ellie Arroway"-non religious beliefs of the same. Maybe it's a big question mark how those beliefs are tested in the moment of being tortured. Maybe nobody involved likes the option, but it's there because we do not know about that moment, or what happens after we die, but we do know how utterly horrifyingly people can behave in war.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  Suicide mechanisms are used after the mission has failed, either they are captured or about to be captured. Agents aren't going to use a suicide option while still able to operate. (Although an actor free to operate but for which there isn't a survival option may choose a suicide attack. There was an American kamikaze in WWII, he wasn't going to make it back to the carrier, the only possible rescue was the very fleet he was attacking.) When it comes down to a quick death by a suicide agent vs being tortured and then likely an unmarked grave it can be a reasonable option. Agents which aren't so likely to be put through the wringer and might be exchanged are another matter--Gary Powers had little reason to use his suicide option. He didn't have great secrets to be tortured for.
tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
I suspect it's a matter of "fast, painless, compact, reliable - choose three".
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  if it's agonising death, agent won't take it, so it is no longer reliable. They folled themselves. Too clever by half
  - krisoft 4y ago
    It is not like the agents will know if it is agonising or not. You just tell them it is painless. It is not like they are going to test it on themselves. If someone somehow ends up whitnessing a usage and they complain you tell them “this is very concerning, we are going to investigate. Maybe a bad batch? Or enemy action?” and then you classify the whole thing for 150 years. If there is such a widespread leak that you can’t do the above (for example one of your agents swallows poison direct on camera broadcast publicly) then you say to your agents: “Turns out it is not working as painlessly as we thought. Obviously we are not monsters, we couldn’t test it on live subjects. Discontinue old formulation, new painless formulation is being distributed.” And then you give them new pills with the same or nearly the same poison and visibly new packaging/concealment. But that is a last resort, only if there is too much grumbling amomg the rank and file.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      sounds like your main strategy is 'assume everyone working as a CIA agent is an idiot' and they don't catch on after working for many years?
      - vintermann 4y ago
        "I work for an agency that routinely gains people's trust in order to betray it, but I trust them and they would never betray me" seems to be the default belief for this lot, so maybe it isn't so far fetched.
miohtama 4y ago
Probably still less painful than torture
wrp 4y ago
In the 1980s, I read that the GRU issued an injector they called "blissful death". The source was unreliable, but that's a starting point for research.
ridgered4 4y ago
Riffing on another comment, perhaps the poisons used have no known antidotes and that is why they are chosen even though they are painful. Otherwise they would probably be pointless since you could be revived.

I guess you don't want that, because it may give people too much of an easy way out, giving up too soon when survival was still preferable for mission success.

Gys 4y ago
That would not be my guess. From the state point of view keeping secrets might be much more important than one life.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Plus, the last thing the State would want is for their asset to have second thoughts about taking the suicide pill─“They may torture me soon and it will probably be extremely painful... but the pill will certainly be extremely painful! Maybe I should risk it”
  - hericium 4y ago
    Were the agents told that the death will be painful? I believe that organization such as the CIA would rather lie to its own agents to make sure they would poison themselves.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I am sorry this thread is ridiculous. First, if they are detained, they will be strip searched long before any torture takes place. You either take it early or not at all - odds are everything will be taken away. Second, the last thing you want in such situation is ambiguity - people don't just commit suicide willy-nilly. Instructions must be very clear. Thirdly, either the agent has secret information that cannot be divulged, or they don't. This is known upfront before the mission. Any agent at high risk of capture is kept away from sensitive information, to minimise possible damage. Every spy and reconnaissance organisation work like that. As soon as agent is captured, damage control is put in place. Lastly, orders to commit suicide are not legally possible.
    - hericium 4y ago
      > Lastly, orders to commit suicide are not legally possible. You do realize that we're talking about the CIA here, right?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        What are you gonna do, threaten the guy with Death? :)
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        "If you do not comply with our request for your suicide, we cannot guarantee the safety of your children, Samantha, currently in 3rd grade in Glaveston Primary, and John, named after your father, who is a star quarterback on Washington High's team. We trust you do what is necessary."
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        This is over the top even for the CIA, but they were definitely capable of being monsters. In the case of Gary Powers the agency fought hard to avoid a prisoner exchange and even internally claimed he had defected intentionally. His wife was even committed to a psychiatric institution: not so much to threaten Powers, but just to keep her from embarrassing the agency with her drinking. Ultimately they went ahead with the exchange partly out of fear that Powers would learn what they’d done to his wife.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        If they did so, who would ever agree to go on a mission like that or join CIA at all? We are talking about US citizens for whom this is a job, they are not like foreign prisoners. CIA -agents are 'one of their own'. This is like Taliban-level stuff
        Viliam1234 4y ago
        > If they did so, who would ever agree to go on a mission like that or join CIA at all? This assumes the others would know that it happened. Who would tell them? Certainly not the guy who complied with the request for suicide.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  I assume the suicide option is an option for the prospective torturee - not for the agency. If the pill causes pain, that's an unwanted side-effect. It's unlikely to be as painful as the actions of your torturer, whose goal is to cause as much pain as possible, and who may also want to stretch it out for weeks. And there's a good chance your torturer will kill you anyway. Sometimes torture is used for punishment or repression, not to obtain information. Arguably that's always the purpose; "information" obtained through torture isn't very reliable.
  - 3pac 4y ago
    The psychological pain (weight) of even carrying such a suicide pill/coin as part of your mission pack-out. Perhaps the person has a strong Judeo-Christian belief that God finds suicide and self-harm abhorrent. Or "Dr. Ellie Arroway"-non religious beliefs of the same. Maybe it's a big question mark how those beliefs are tested in the moment of being tortured. Maybe nobody involved likes the option, but it's there because we do not know about that moment, or what happens after we die, but we do know how utterly horrifyingly people can behave in war.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
Suicide mechanisms are used after the mission has failed, either they are captured or about to be captured. Agents aren't going to use a suicide option while still able to operate. (Although an actor free to operate but for which there isn't a survival option may choose a suicide attack. There was an American kamikaze in WWII, he wasn't going to make it back to the carrier, the only possible rescue was the very fleet he was attacking.) When it comes down to a quick death by a suicide agent vs being tortured and then likely an unmarked grave it can be a reasonable option. Agents which aren't so likely to be put through the wringer and might be exchanged are another matter--Gary Powers had little reason to use his suicide option. He didn't have great secrets to be tortured for.

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago

I suspect it's a matter of "fast, painless, compact, reliable - choose three".

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
if it's agonising death, agent won't take it, so it is no longer reliable. They folled themselves. Too clever by half
- krisoft 4y ago
  It is not like the agents will know if it is agonising or not. You just tell them it is painless. It is not like they are going to test it on themselves. If someone somehow ends up whitnessing a usage and they complain you tell them “this is very concerning, we are going to investigate. Maybe a bad batch? Or enemy action?” and then you classify the whole thing for 150 years. If there is such a widespread leak that you can’t do the above (for example one of your agents swallows poison direct on camera broadcast publicly) then you say to your agents: “Turns out it is not working as painlessly as we thought. Obviously we are not monsters, we couldn’t test it on live subjects. Discontinue old formulation, new painless formulation is being distributed.” And then you give them new pills with the same or nearly the same poison and visibly new packaging/concealment. But that is a last resort, only if there is too much grumbling amomg the rank and file.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    sounds like your main strategy is 'assume everyone working as a CIA agent is an idiot' and they don't catch on after working for many years?
    - vintermann 4y ago
      "I work for an agency that routinely gains people's trust in order to betray it, but I trust them and they would never betray me" seems to be the default belief for this lot, so maybe it isn't so far fetched.

miohtama 4y ago

Probably still less painful than torture

wrp 4y ago

In the 1980s, I read that the GRU issued an injector they called "blissful death". The source was unreliable, but that's a starting point for research.

ridgered4 4y ago

Riffing on another comment, perhaps the poisons used have no known antidotes and that is why they are chosen even though they are painful. Otherwise they would probably be pointless since you could be revived.