It depends on how one defines “work.”
If it is merely generates informations, then the answer would be that it does work.
If it is generates correct information then the answer would be yes it works.
If work is to mean generates reliable information consistently then the answer would no it doesn’t work.
It seems one one side are the military/intel professionals and on the other are the fans of 24 and the Bush Admin.
Then you can respond to my question about police using torture if it works so well. Plus. I’d like a cite as to how effective torture is. When Gitmo opened, a number of experts on interrogation were interviewed who said that torture is not effective, for the reasons we’ve already discussed.
We also have the practical issue that, since we can’t be sure our suspect is in fact involved, some innocent people will get tortured. That has happened. How many innocents are you willing to torture per guilty person?
I do agree that torture has proven results, though. So far they’ve included fueling the insurgency and ruining the reputation of the United States.
Even though it’s FOX, this matches my recollections.
It all depends on how you are defining “work.”
Please provide at least one instance of an intel professional who says that torture is a consistently reliable means of acquiring useful, correct information.
Could everyone arguing in favor of torture in a ticking time bomb scenario please dig up just one instance of such a scenario actually happening, and where a heroic torturer gained the needed information in time and saved innocent lives?
Just one instance in history. Sure, there are plenty of examples of torturers getting people to confess to crimes, even if the people know that confession means a death warrant, and in many cases these people might have actually been guilty of the crimes they were executed for.
But where are the examples of torturers saving lives? Surely it’s happened at least once in human history, but if it has, I’ve never heard about it. Jack Bauer is fictional, where are the real life Jack Bauers? Where are the hero torturers? Name one. Where did he live? Who did he work for? Which lives did he save? It must be immensely frustrating for these heroes that their sacrifices for this country must be kept secret.
Not even tried proven and convicted terrorists. No.
Most of us are capable of recognizing there’s such a thing as the middle ground. Torturers aren’t heroes but they might sometimes be necessary. And if a good person is forced to do something he knows is wrong, even if it’s to avoid something far worse, he’s unlikely to want to brag about it afterwards.
It’s easy to put yourself above the issue and declare that you would never condone torture under any circumstance. It makes you sound noble. But consider what it really means. We’ve presented the scenario of torturing a terrorist to prevent NYC from being blown up. You’ve declared that you would be willing to sacrifice ten million people die rather than bend your principles. Would you call yourself a hero non-torturer then? Tell everybody that it’s too bad about all those millions of people who were killed but the big picture is that your hands are still clean.
Tell all the dead Iraqis how heroic we are for being the kind of scum amoral and sadistic enough to torture - and therefore also amoral and sadistic enough to invade them and slaughter them and torture them. Or did you think that you could be the kind of person willing to torture for a “noble” cause, and not be a monster in the rest of your life ?
So the answer is that you know of no cases where this scenario actually happened. And while you talk about these hypotheticals, you are enabling what is really going on - the torture of innocents, and the torture of the potentially guilty, which isn’t effective. As has been said countless times, even if torture is illegal, someone doing it in your far-fetched scenario would never be convicted, or even charged.
Actually, you’re wrong. I said earlier several times that I’m unwilling to say that torture is always wrong under any circumstance. What I have said is that torture must be illegal under any circumstance, allegations of torture must be vigourously investigated, and those found guilty of torture must face the full weight of the justice system. If you want to torture someone to prevent NYC from being blown up, go ahead. Just expect to spend 20 years in jail afterwards. If you’re not willing to spend 20 years in jail, then I guess saving New York City was that important after all, was it?
Fact is, the ticking time bomb scenario that is always invoked never seems to happen in real life, because the circumstances that would have to happen are just too rare. You have to have a bomb, you have to have a timer on the bomb, you have a suspect in custody, you have to know that there’s a bomb, you have to know there’s a time limit, you have to know that the suspect has knowledge of the bomb, and on and on.
In real life the situation is more like this. An Iraqi informant tells you that Akbar is working for Al Qaida. Your patrol picks him up and takes him back to base. Well, he’s Al Qaida, right? So Akbar probably knows about all sorts of weapons caches, and he knows other Al Qaida members. If you could get him to tell you where those weapons caches are, or name other Al Qaida members, you’re going to save lives, right? Al Qaida doesn’t cache those weapons for fun, they use those weapons to attack American soldiers, not to mention slaughtering Shi’a praying at a mosque, or blowing up marketplaces. So if you don’t find that weapons cache, that means some Iraqi kid is gonna die. Probably several Iraqi kids.
So what do you do in that situation? You torture, right? You’re practically morally obligated to torture that prisoner, right? It will save lives, right? What’s more important, refraining from torture to keep yourself pure, keep your hands clean, when it means some Iraqi kid is gonna die?
That’s the reality of torture. That’s the real-life scenario that we’re debating, that’s what our soldiers are really faced with. Not a nuclear bomb in New York City, but some random Iraqi guy pulled off the street, who may very well be a member of Al Qaida. Of course, after we torture him, he’s definately going to be a member of Al Qaida, even if he wasn’t before. So if we torture him, we’ve got to either detain him indefinately, or put a bullet in his brain…because otherwise he’s gonna be planting an IED tomorrow.
So how many Iraqis can we pull off the streets, torture, and then detain indefinately or summarily execute? How common can that be? You think this will be an effective method of gathering intelligence about the insurgency in Iraq? That this will be an effective method of winning the war, if it wasn’t for the namby-pamby liberals whimpering about how torture is wrong, like little girls? How many people are going to help Americans if they’re very likely to be tortured once they are within American hands?
Torturing Iraqi prisoners is just one more reason why we’re losing the war. It is not a method for winning the war. Forget whether torture is moral or immoral, for get whether it sometimes produces reliable information. If our goal is to really, for real, no fooling, to rebuild–or rather, build–Iraqi civil society, and create a state that doesn’t wink at terrorist operations, a state that isn’t a puppet of Iran, then is the routine use of torture by US troops going to help accomplish that? Or will it accomplish the reverse?
If torture is so fucking effective, then how in good conscience can you bar torture by American police, American judges, American prosecuting attorneys, American prison guards, against American citizens? If torture works, if torture saves lives, then how in Jesus’s name can we toss aside this valuable tool? Why not allow cops to torture suspects? Why not allow prosecuting attorney’s to torture defendents? Why not allow prison guards to torture inmates? As the inquisitors asked, what’s more important, a little temporary pain here on earth, or eternal damnation in hell?
Can you think of any reason, any reason at all, why legal torture by cops and courts might not be such a good idea…against Americans, anyway?
State sponsored torture is totalitarian. The power to torture turns citizens into slaves. It turns public servants into monsters.
It’s not that I can’t imagine any circumstance where torture might be useful. It’s that I can’t imagine any government agent, or any person at all, that when given the power to torture would use that power wisely. Such a person does not exist. There is no such person. You’re not that person, I’m not that person, Mother Teresa isn’t that person.
And so if you think you need to torture that terrorist to save New York City, then you’re on your own. We’re not going to give you advance legal cover to torture as you see fit. The best we can offer is that under our legal system you’re entitled to a trial by a jury of your peers, and if your defense of that particular torture is so compelling, and the jury buys it, you’ll get a slap on the wrist and at most lose your job. And if someone is willing to torture prisoners, but isn’t willing to go to jail or lose their job to save New York City, then fuck them. The person who would gladly torture, but needs a form signed in triplicate first, isn’t someone you can trust with the legal power to torture. No, go ahead and save New York City, then beg forgiveness afterward.
Because the alternative is that torture is winked at. It becomes routine. Is that the society you want to live in? Are you that scared? Honestly? Or is it more that you just think terrorists deserve to be tortured? Well, maybe they do. But so what? Lots of people deserve lots of things, but our judicial system is wisely limited. We don’t sentence people to be tortured, not because it would be bad for them to be tortured, but because it would be bad for us to become torturers.
I don’t understand what you mean - that I choose to only associate with people who are against torture, perhaps? That’d be true, but that wasn’t my actual point.
I said everyone I know **who was tortured **was against it, and everyone in **my family **(i.e. immediate descendants of my Grandad) was against it. My Grandad was driven into dementia by Apartheid-era torture - and he was just a bookkeeper for political groups.
I made no claim about other families, and I hope I emphasised the anecdotal nature of my experience.
I believe you misspelled imagining.
There are probably methods of treatment that fall short of torture that may be effective in persuading prisoners to provide information. Various acts that cause groups of prisoners to begin to mistrust each other while coming to put more faith in their captors come to mind.
There may be some point at which we disagree whether some particular activity should be regarded as torture.
However, I am unaware of any act of torture that did any more than provide the torturer with the information he wanted to hear. People will say anything–including guessing what the torturer wishes to hear and saying that–in order to escape the pain. Thus, torture does not seem to provide new information, it merely allows the torturer to believe that his own suspicions have been confirmed.
Tomndebb
I’m not sure I agree that the information derived would inevitably be lies or guesses of what the torturer wanted to hear. As you say, people will say anything to get you to stop whatever you’re doing. This includes true and useful information.
Regards
Testy
I posted this before, so I still have to say it is indeed what the torturer wants to hear.
I do think now more than ever that torture is used by the powerful to get justifications (more often false ones than true ones) on why they are following a reprehensible course of action:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/09/world/main3151574.shtml
Looking at how false torture information helped us to get into Iraq
And now to see many prisoners not being released because of torture (they can reveal how we do it! So we can not release them even if they were not involved) or confessions obtained by it, that then the evil result of torture is clear, governments are “forced” to hide their failures by punishing the victims even more.
So why continue? It is because what you can get out of it is profitable still or it helps the political standing of the ones in power that approves it?
I remember reading how effective torture was for past empires, for the Spanish inquisition torture was effective: [del]Iraq’s oil[/del] the property of the confessed was confiscated by the catholic church. (never mind the small detail that virtually all accused were innocent or did not deserve what they got)
I think torture was and is considered effective for the state, but not for its protection, but to get evidence to prove an evil path was/is the correct one.
Lemur866
I fully agree with your point that torture can never be legally condoned. As you point out and as I mentioned somewhere up-thread, if it is legal in any circumstance some politician will inevitably stretch the permission into more and more circumstances.
OTOH, I disagree with your scenario of pulling random guys off the street and torturing them to find out whether they know something or not. OTOH, if you catch a guy with an IED shop in his basement or running around with an automatic weapon, why not torture the guy? You know he has information of use and he’s already an AQ member. Wring him out then haul him out back and shoot him. Alternatively you could lock him up forever but why bother?
As far as your point about us wanting to build democracies in the Middle East and all that, I don’t think we do or ever did think that. AFAICT, all those rationalizations were made after we’d already decided to attack them. I don’t think we even had a goal or a definition of “winning.” Just on a final note, I think we’ve already guaranteed that large chunks of Iraq are going to be owned and operated from Tehran. The only way out of this that I can see is if Iraq winds up with another iron-fisted dictator. Sort of a “Saddam Mark II.” Lucky them.
Regards
Testy
Too bad, since that’s what we do.
Because it’s evil. And because he might not even know it’s in the basement, or it might not even be his house. And because in a war zone there’s all sorts of good reasons to carry an automatic weapon. And because we’re already the bad guys, politically and morally, and there’s no need to make things worse.
You know nothing of the kind. Most people fighting in Iraq aren’t Al Qaeda; they are a tiny factor in Iraq.
Because it would qualify us as civilized.
Luckier than they are under American control.
Applause for Lemur866.
Because I would like to at least pretend to enjoy a position of moral superiority over the religious thugs who call themselves the enemy of our civilization. You do not fight evil by becoming evil yourself.
Nice. Terrorist = doesn’t deserve a trial. If you’re a dirty terrist, your detainers are your jury and your executioner. Jesus leghumping Christ, do you not see how by suggesting this you are throwing away several hundred years of social progress, and returning us to the days of shadowy dictators and blackbooted fascism?
If you don’t give him at least the barest minimum of a fair shake in your legal system, then you are not a civilized country. Period. PERIOD.
I find it profoundly depressing that there is any argument at all on this subject. Lemur866 is absolutely correct to ask “are you that scared”: Many, many people must be absolutely terrified to have abandoned their intellectual faculties and attached themselves to this subrational — indeed, animalistic — point of view. And what’s worse, many are mocking those of us who have made a coldly objective choice on the matter, saying, in effect, “Oh, sure, you say that now. But what are you gonna do when your own ass is really on the line? Or your mom? Or this basketful of adorable puppies? Huh? Huh? What are you gonna do then? I bet you won’t talk so tough then, willya.” Yeah, well, you know what? Absolutely I will. I do not and will not compromise on this. And the reason I won’t is simple: I will not cave in under emotionalism. It takes strength to hold fast to honorable principles when brutal terror is battering at the gates of reason. If one has the luxury of time to consider one’s options and make a careful, thoroughly informed choice about the best course of action, whether pragmatically or morally, then one should have the fucking decency to stand by those convictions. I do not casually discard my principles when my lizard brain starts pumping adrenaline into my system; I have the mind, and the will — and the fucking courage — to overrule the panic response, and to stay consistent with what I determined, absent the interfering influence of abject terror, to be the correct behavior. It saddens me — but does not particularly surprise me — to learn that I am apparently in the minority on this.
Nitpick: What the subject thinks the torturer wants to hear. Adding yet another layer of uncertainty to the process.
Well said, Cervaise.