Theres a reason we do double blind studies, and a reason to be cautious about claims something works if people cant supply empirical evidence.
Force of will works both ways, people will work very hard to say what they’re doing is effective, even when they have only post-hoc evidence to do so.
eg 10 people tortured, 2 people talk. 10 people interrogated using normal methods, 4 people talk.
Which one was effective?
Otara
I have read many times that interrogators say torture does not work. Bush and Cheney said it did. Many pro war types say it does, to help justify torturing. It would be difficult to admit torture did not work after you authorized it and had it done thousands of times. Oops does not help the guilt go away.
But getting close to the prisoner is how jailers get info. But it seems logical that if you torture they will give our everything they know. But the fact is they will say anything they think you want to hear to make the pain go away. The real actionable info comes from creating a relationship with the prisoner.It takes a little time.
Well, color me unsurprised. Your links do not support your claim that there is a consensus among working interrogators that enhanced interrogation techniques are ineffective.
Could it be argued that terrorizing a prisoner a bit - isolation, hostility, discomfort - before presenting the interogator would speed the process? If so, is that be acceptable?
Where is the line?
Unpleasant food is okay, starvation is not - what about spoiled food?
Beatings are wrong, uncomfortable cots are not - what about cells infested with biting insects?
The rules, I believe, come down firmly against the ‘gray’ suggestions above, but are exceptions permissible to ‘soften’ a subject ethically? Morally?
I can’t force you to accept factual information that contradicts your practiced and fact-free ideology. But don’t for an instant think that anyone here is fooled.
In fact, that this blank and worthless deflection is the best you could come up with after hours is admission enough that there is nothing in the universe that could possibly persuade you from your already established beliefs. If you can’t be persuaded with facts, you probably shouldn’t debate.
As you already ignored the post by the New Yorker on the tale of how torture misled us into Iraq, you should be aware that torture is an effective tool if the truth is not what you seek.
PDF file
:rolleyes:
Show me where your cite supports the idea that there is a consensus of working interrogators that EITs are ineffective. Or admit that you believe that claim despite the lack of evidence for it.
You are the one who doesn’t let facts get in your way. You latch onto what you want to hear and make up facts that would make you happy (ie, your consensus).
The links to the large number of official interrogators that say torture doesn’t work shows the consensus. Are you actually saying that a cite doesn’t count unless the word “consensus” appears in it?
The idea that the Army Field Manual would state that torture produces unreliable information without first establishing that this was the consensus of experts in the field is laughable, especially in the face of (so far) absolutely zero evidence provided by Rand that even one “working interrogator” thinks it is effective.
When you add in the CIA and the FBI it is really hard to imagine what type of broader consensus one would require. Perhaps the ISI? Mossad? IRG?
I am watching a guy who was involved in 1300 interrogations while in the Army. He says they feel insulted by those who want them to torture. He says they are well trained and can do their job without resorting to torture. He mentions one courier that the intelligence tracked down for 3 years ,wasting tons of money and time. His name was given by a guy they tortured. It was a lie given under torture.
Then of course, torture imperils all combatants. If an American gets captured in any future wars, he can expect to be tortured. If it is good enough for us, you can hardly expect our enemies to be better. It demeans the interrogators. They liked to think of themselves as professionals with some standards. Now they are torturers like a medieval country. They are forced to do it by civilians who direct the operations. So they are doing something many of them do not believe works well at all. They find it demeaning .
But pro torture fans have to believe it works. Otherwise it says something about them.
Torture is nice if you want revenge or want to punish someone. It is not how you get actionable intelligence.
Nope, it’s your post that’s laughable. Someone on the other side could say that the idea that intelligence agencies would implement EITs without first establishing that their efficacy was the consensus of experts is laughable, and they’d be making just as bad of an argument as you are.
As soon as I make the claim that even one working interrogator thinks EITs are effective, you bet your ass I’ll provide solid support for that claim.
Children, please! No facts regarding the effectiveness of torture are going to change Service Sector’s mind because his opinion is based on different facts, which are as follows: Republicans utilized torture; he supports the Republicans.
That’s all there is to it.
I ask again-can you back this up, Rand Rover?
Edited to add-And have you read any of the cites that you asked for yet?
My use of the term “people” in that post clearly referred to “the Army, the CIA, the FBI, and assorted other agencies.”
I asked Lobohan for a cite to support his claim, so I read Lobohan’s cites and posted my reaction above.
What’s your evidence for this proposition?
Really you have as much evidence for the above as you do for the claim that I am from an torture-loving alien planet who has been sent to the internet to spread the gospel of torture to you earthlings.
You aren’t an alien. You’re just not willing to accept facts or change your opinions based on them.
Are you saying that you didn’t read any of the other cites just because they weren’t posted by Lobohan? Amazing!
Would you read them if Lobohan went to the ridiculous extreme of cutting and pasting them into his own post?
Rand, either you’re being really clever or really stupid.
Going back to read your initial post it seems to me that you’re making no claims whatsoever as to the efficacy of torture. Is that your position?
Because all of the evidence provided in this thread supports the conclusion that torture is ineffective. Either your being intentionally vague in order to not have to provide any evidence, or you’re just being pedantic to be pedantic. Either way it’s not particularly illuminating.
Facts such as what? The consensus of professional interrogators that EITs are ineffective? Which you’ve posted no evidence for?
You pick and choose the facts you want to look at, then you decide that your opinions are based on those hand-selected facts. I’m happy simply not having an opinion on an issue that I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on.
I read his cites because that was all the time I was willing to invest in this endeavour last night. I mean, one of the cites someone posted was a web page with a link to a whole bunch of other pages.