In al-Bukamal, an ISIS member whips a man for breaking his fast without a religiously acceptable excuse. One prisoner of ISIS reports that an ISIS member would enter the cell carrying a prisoner's amputated head, promising other prisoners a similar fate. POSTED ON THE INTERNET BY ISIS.

This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site.

Since its entry into Raqqa, the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has attempted to spread fear into the hearts of civilians by kidnapping and killing activists, journalists, leaders and members of the Free Syrian Army and opposing Islamist factions.

The barbarity of ISIS's torture of its prisoners became known after the killing of Dr.Hussein Abu Rayyan, head of the Tel Abyad border crossing and member of theAhrar al-Sham Islamic movement. The forensic report revealed fractures in his neck and ribs, bullet wounds in his hands and legs and an amputated ear.

Many reports have come out of ISIS’s prisons concerning its prescribed torture methods, including psychological torture: “The ISIS prison wardens would speak continuously of the coming retribution. ISIS men would enter, place knives on our necks and threaten to kill us. An ISIS member would occasionally enter carrying a prisoner’s amputated head, promising the others a similar fate,” stated Ahmed, an activist in the “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently” movement.

In the streets of Raqqa, ISIS erected steel cages filled with human skulls to imprison women for one night who disobey its laws.

Torture is both a punishment and a means for the wardens to satisfy themselves and their bosses. Their ideas come from the darkest side of human creativity.

The primary torture method that is used during interrogations of men and women that violate ISIS’s laws (and is recognized as customary punishment by ISIS legislation) is lashing. Lashing is used to elicit information and confessions from victims.

The “shabeh” or “ghost” method is used for similar reasons; with the shabeh, the warden hangs the prisoner from his hands for a period of time that may stretch into days. The prisoner often loses his ability to move his hands, dislocates his joints, and could cause damage to his brachial plexus, resulting usually in permanent disability.

Another torture method is electric shock, which ISIS uses to interrogate prisoners with complete disregard to the limits of the human body. Electric shock often leads to death, caused by damage to heart muscle or electric burns.

Additionally, the iron “biter”—composed of a metal jaw used on women who fail to abide by the ISIS dress code—leaves the prisoner with a permanent scar. This torture instrument was first used in the Middle Ages before being brought back into use by ISIS.

The “flying carpet” is a metal board with hinges in the middle, and the prisoner is tied to these hinges. It is then closed, causing a brutal bend that may lead to fractures in the victim’s spine or ribcage.

Torture is a horrendous act and those committing it, both the torturer and the one ordering the torture (the latter generally being a commander or emir in the ISIS hierarchy) exhibit certain psychological characteristics. This article relies on general psychological studies and in particular the work of psychologist Philip Zimbardo.

A number of characteristics are present in torturers, though not all of them necessarily present in all torturers. The most important of these characteristics is sadism, an individual’s tendency to derive pleasure and psychological (and even sexual) gratification from seeing others suffering from torture.

In al-Bukamal, an ISIS member whips a man for breaking his fast without a religiously acceptable excuse. One prisoner of ISIS reports that an ISIS member would enter the cell carrying a prisoner’s amputated head, promising other prisoners a similar fate. POSTED ON THE INTERNET BY ISIS.

Torturers also have a tendency toward appeasement, as described by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who is known for his famous prison experiment and the “Lucifer Effect” theory.

Appeasement may contradict the aforementioned characteristic of sadism, but it is one that is crucial for torturers’ personalities because it allows them to submit to their leaders’ orders without their conscience pushing them to question or oppose the commands to commit violence.

Perhaps the reason for this blind obedience or eagerness to appease is limited intelligence, shallow understandings of culture and feelings of insecurity—all characteristics that make such people easily persuaded.

Because of these characteristics, torturers will blindly obey their leaders, are easy to entice and can be convinced that what they are doing is in the best interest of a country or a particular cause.

ISIS cultivates such blind obedience in its torturers, soldiers, and even the general public, forcing people to be loyal to the Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the operational ISIS hierarchy.

They have used Koranic verses and Hadith of the Prophet to support their cause, such as verse 59 from Sura al-Nisa, “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority,” functioning as support for the military, mimicking the expression “shoot first, ask questions later.” Such an interpretation seeks to link objection to orders with sin and a departure from religion.

The third trait of torturers is anti-social psychopathy: a complete lack of respect for society’s laws, values or conventions. A psychopath is aggressive, feels no guilt or regret, does not learn from previous experiences and is unable to feel sympathy, mercy, justice or dignity. These individuals are concerned solely with obtaining the greatest amount of pleasure, even if it comes from pain caused to others. “The warden would hit me, while laughing, and call me an infidel,” recalls Saleh, a young man who was recently released from an ISIS prison.

The fourth trait is paranoia, naturally expecting the worst of intentions and behavior from people. This trait is defined by pessimism and those who have it find refuge in preemptive aggression, excusing this aggression as necessary protection for himself or for others from terrorism or any expected dangers. This intense fear leads to the contempt and distrust of others, allowing them to find refuge in sources of security (which is how ISIS attracts such personalities).

The ability to rationalize their acts and clear their conscience is the fifth characteristic, and an important psychological tactic, that does not fall under one of the aforementioned categories.

Torturers, for example, consider torture to be a legitimate means to achieve security for the rest of the population or to elicit important confessions that will lead to achieving peace (in either their or their leaders’ opinions). In the end, they associate torture as a means to achieve national goals or attain security.

The effects of torture depend on the extremity and type of torture, as well as on the victim’s character, and the post-torture support system. Generally speaking, there are several common aftereffects to those who have been tortured. The first is the collapse of the victim’s core assumptions.

He had previously believed that there was a sanctity to the body and the self, an amount of dignity in humanity, and that mercy, sympathy, and justice exist; these assumptions—as well as other basic, fundamental values—are shaken after extreme torture.

The victim’s entire psychological foundation is shaken, and he spends years searching for a new way to explain and accept what he has been through. He lives the remainder of his life in pieces, especially if tortured as a child or a young man.

The second effect is the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a stress disorder that afflicts people who have witnessed horrific events that had threatened them, or perhaps those who have experienced a severe injury or life-threatening danger.

In these cases, memories of torture return both during a person’s waking state as well as in their dreams, as if it were replaying as a film. Every time these people see or hear someone or something that reminds them of these events, that person feels as if the traumatic event is happening at that very moment all over again; this will make most want to avoid anything that reminds them of what happened.

These effects can occur alongside depression, as the victim of torture can feel a loss of energy and dignity, encompassed by hopelessness at the possibility of retribution. The attributes of depression appear based on the individual and their situation, but often the person is afflicted by a state of sadness, a loss of appetite, a feeling of that life is meaningless and a potential development of a sleep disorder.

The individual is occasionally overcome by mental ailments such as illusions of persecution and hallucinations, accompanying the psychophysical distress such as disturbances to the digestive, the circulatory and respiratory system.

Torture is a vicious circle, each phase characterized by violence. Treating and recovering from this violence should not be taken lightly. Now Syrian society will suffer from its consequences for years to come, as its effects are not only physical but also psychological, for both the victim and the perpetrator.

The suffering society could seek retribution or revenge from their torturers, which may lead to additional violence. Treatment starts with awareness of torture’s effects and a readiness to support victims by designing mechanisms to reinstate justice and mercy in the society.

Syria needs to start considering mechanisms such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, even if they are only implemented locally, in areas liberated from ISIS.

“Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently” is a campaign launched by a group of nonviolent activists in Raqqa to shed light on the Assad regime’s and ISIS atrocities. Follow them on their website raqqa-sl.com/en/, on Twitter @Raqqa_SL and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl

(Newsweek)

Late Thursday night, Dallas police attached an explosive device to what’s known as a “bomb-disposal robot,” rolled it into an area where one of the suspected shooters was holed up, and detonated the bomb, killing him on the spot.

The move marked the first time that civilian police have used a robot to kill an American suspect on American soil, according to several legal and robotics scholars, raising major questions about the use of such machines in domestic stand-offs.

“The situation definitely raises interesting questions,” said Peter Asaro, an assistant professor at the New School for Public Engagement in New York City and a co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control. “Who was controlling the bomb? Who was controlling the robot?”

Not to mention: Was this the best use of force in this case? What does it mean for the use of robots in future instances?

At a Friday morning press conference, Dallas Police Chief Brown said that a hostage negotiator had been in touch by phone with the suspect in question, but it was apparent that the shooter remained dangerous and officers were in danger. Brown also said the suspect mentioned the placement of IEDs, improvised explosive devices, in the city. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,” Brown said. “Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb.”

Several legal and robotics scholars told TIME that, given those circumstances, the use of the robot in this case was no different, from a legal or moral position, than killing an active shooter in another way. “From a utilitarian perspective, if the officers on the scene have already decided that they need to kill this person, how they do it doesn’t matter,” Ansaro said.

Dan Montgomery, a former police chief and expert on police practice, agreed that the officers acted according to agreed-upon rules of engagement. “Admittedly, I’ve never heard of that tactic being used before in civilian law enforcement, but it makes sense,” he told TIME. “You’ve got to look at the facts, the totality of the circumstances. You’ve got officers killed, civilians in jeopardy, and an active shooter scenarios. You know that you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to neutralize that threat. So whether you do it with a sniper getting a shot through the window or a robot carrying an explosive device? It’s legally the same.”

Cynthia Lum, director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University, also noted the Dallas police force’s “highly unusual use of a robot,” but said the situation merited it. The use of robots can be an effective way to avoid harm to police officers or bystanders, she said.

Others scholars said the situation seemed a little murkier. Keith Abney, a professor of ethics and emerging sciences at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, said that while the police officers’ decision to use the robot to kill the suspect in this case “doesn’t seem fundamentally ethically different from another distance weapon, like a sniper rifle, used to take out suspects in an active shooter situation,” there is still the question of why the suspect had to die.

“One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.”

Gloria Browne-Marshall, an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the incident was most concerning because of what it means for future cases: What are the parameters surrounding the use of such technology on civilian soil? “If we’re going to start using—as a country—this kind of drone technology and robots on a civilian population, then we’re easing into a civil war,” she told TIME. “We’re easing into one because we have civilians who believe that the government is not protecting them, and we have a government who believes that civilians are armed enough that they have to use military tactics.”

Thomas J. Aveni, the executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, told TIME that the events in Dallas should not be taken lightly. Given the precise circumstances in this case, the police were justified in their decision to use the robot to kill, he said. “But some will say it’s a slippery slope—that this remote way of killing people that we’ve accepted and embraced in the military realm, it is something that should be more closely examined, and I would concur,” he said.

“We should codify some ethical guideline on when people can be killed remotely,” he added. “Can we used aerial drones like we use in Afghanistan?”

Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank New America and leading expert on 21st century security issues, said that many domestic police forces now have two types of robots of different sizes and shapes in their arsenal—those used for surveillance and those for bomb disposal. Surveillance robots are equipped, as would be expected, with cameras, he said, while bomb disposal robots generally have a sophisticated arm that can be operated remotely by something akin to a joy stick.

Importantly, Singer said, these robots are not designed or intended to be used as weapons to kill. In the past, U.S. police forces most often use bomb disposal robots to inspect suspicious packages, dismantle bombs, and to initiate what’s known as a “controlled explosion” of explosive device. For example, last year, San Jose police convinced a man not to commit suicide after sending a robot to deliver a phone and pizza to him. In other instances, robots have been used to deliver notes to kidnappers or to monitor a suspect’s behavior.

In the Dallas case, it’s unclear when officers decided to employ the robot in this innovative way, and what they used to weaponize it. Brown said only that a “device” was placed on the robot’s “extension.” Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said in another statement that the suspect was killed after police used explosives to “blast him out.”

Experts told TIME it’s possible that officers used the same small explosive device used during a controlled explosion to explode next to the suspect. It’s also possible that they used a hand grenade or a mine, experts added. Aveni, who has worked as a police officer for 26-years, said that explosive charges are generally used only rarely—to breach a door, serve as a distraction, or to detonate a bomb or suspicious device. “To actually devise something with the express intent to kill somebody is totally new,” he said.

Singer says that while that’s unprecedented on American soil, U.S. soldiers have used a robot abroad in that way. The U.S. military employs roughly 12,000 ground surveillance and bomb-disposal robots, which are most often used in Iraq and Afghanistan to inspect buildings or to determine whether a car, stopped at a check point at a safe distance, was carrying explosives, Singer said. In his 2009 book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, Singer recounted a story in which U.S. soldiers in Iraq duct-taped an explosive to a Marcbot, a knee-high ground robot that looks like a child’s toy truck, and sent it down a narrow alleyway, where a combatant had been hiding. The soldiers detonated the bomb, killing the combatant.

“That’s not the intended use of a Marcbot,” Singer said. “It wasn’t designed that way, that wasn’t how the soldiers were trained. It was them taking duct tape and coming up with their own solution to the problem.” Based on police reports Friday, that appears to be the same scenario that occurred in Dallas: police officers were using a bomb-disposal in an innovative way.

Singer also makes a distinction between the robot that was used to kill the suspect in this case and the specter of “killer robots” that politicians, ethicists, and science fiction aficionados have been concerned about for years. The “killer robot,” at least in theory, is an artificially intelligent being that has been designed specifically to be armed and autonomous, like the Terminator. “That obviously doesn’t seem to be what’s going on in Dallas,” Singer said.

But the use of a robot to kill a suspect on American soil still has people feeling a little unnerved. There’s nothing in annals of police code of conduct or U.S. law that specifically address this issue, Aveni said. “This is a new frontier.”

Katie Reilly contributed to this report.