effectivness of torture

Factual Questions
1

What is the rational behind the belief that torture isn’t that effective? It seems to me that if someone took a blow torch to you or anyone of a thousand nasty things, at some point you will start singing like a canary. Yeah, it is said that people will say “anything” to make the pain stop and you never quite know if the info is accurate, but I think that with most people that if you blow torched them enough you would get down to a final statement they would make over and over again that would probably be the truth.

Thoughts, comments?

2

What makes you think the final statement will “probably be the truth”?

The final statement will be whatever gets the torturer to stop, regardless of whether it is true or not.

3

Torture is counterproductive long term. You might get results from instances of torture, but you’ve taken steps backwards in terms of how you treat your fellow man. And this just doesn’t bode well for progress on a worldwide scale.

4

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/national/main5327342.shtml

5

http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647

Torture does not yield reliable information and is actually counterproductive in intelligence interrogations. This was the conclusion released by retired senior military interrogators and research psychologists during a press conference at Georgetown University.

6

To speak authoritatively, first off we’d need to know how many people have been tortured and what sort of results said torture had.

I don’t see any country rushing forward with that information any time soon.

7

Science.

Not to mention that that torturers are evil people who aren’t going to care about the accuracy of whatever “information” they extract; the hypothetical calm professional torturer who is neither a sadist nor desirous of false confessions does not exist. And then there’s the fact that torture will bury you in false information.

The fact is,that actual interrogation professionals do not support torture because it is simply an ineffective interrogation technique. Torture is something you do because you want to extract false confessions or out of sadism.

8

But what happens when you tell them the truth, and they keep on using the blowtorch?

So if you and Bob robbed the liquor store, and the cops start using a blowtorch on you to find out your accomplices, and at first you clam up, then you throw out some fake names, then you give up and name Bob. Except, what does that look like from the interrogator’s point of view. He tortured you and you named Steve. He kept on torturing you and you named Pete. He kept on torturing you and you named Bob. Why does Bob’s name make him stop torturing you? Because you really really mean it this time? How does he distinguish between when you named Bob and when you named Pete?

This is why people who are tortured confess to whatever crime the torturer thinks they are guilty of. He knows you’re guilty, otherwise he wouldn’t be torturing you. So therefore, you’re going to be tortured until you tell him the truth–as he sees it.

Note that torture can work in a situation where the torturer can easily check the truth value of a statement. So if he demands the combination of the safe, and the safe is right there, and he’s going to keep torturing you until the safe is opened, then you’re going to tell him the combination of the safe–if you know it.

But suppose the safe is on the other side of town. He tortures you for the combination. You give him a combination, and he leaves. Then you call the cops, or get your gun, or whatever. In this case, torture is guaranteed not to work, because you can say anything, and there’s no way for the torturer to check the truth.

And this is why torture under a “ticking time bomb” scenario is guaranteed not to work. Because you torture the guy until he tells you where the bomb is, and you race to defuse the bomb, only to find that the bomb wasn’t there, and then the real bomb goes off.

And this is why open-ended interrogations often fail.

“Who do you work for?”
“Uh…Bob.”
“Liar!” [tortures]
“Wait, stop, it’s Steve!”
“Liar!” [tortures more]
“Crap, I mean Bill!”
“Liar!” [tortures more]
“I mean, it really is Steve! I was lying about Bill, but was telling the truth about Steve!”
“Seriously?” [tortures more]
“Yes!”
“Really? Wow, I guess I’ll stop torturing you now.”
“That’s a relief.”

Now, when did the suspect tell the truth? If any?

This could work if the situation is analogous to the “safe in the room” scenario. The cops have you in custody, and can go check out Steve at their leisure, and can come back a few days later with other evidence either for or against Steve, and can resume torture if they think you lied.

But what happens if they grab Steve, and start to torture him to confess, and since you fingered Steve, they torture him until he confesses to working with you? And now they know you told the truth, because Steve confessed. Surely you see the problem here. They know Steve is guilty because they tortured you until you implicated Steve, and they know Steve is guilty because they tortured him until he confessed, and they confirmed that you’re guilty because Steve implicated you. And so on.

9

Studies show that it is ineffective, though there are several reasons to doubt the relevance of these studies, which largely assume that the torturer is trying to get a confession, not confirmable data, and that the interrogator will never try other methods. What data can be gleaned from real world use of torture as a method of information collection (and not as a way to get confessions) seems to indicate that it probably does work (cites), though it’s difficult to ascertain that. Almost definitely, it is rarely all that necessary. Most people can be broken without resorting to torture.

And of course it’s illegal and immoral, so overall it doesn’t particularly matter what the effectiveness of it is. Anyone who practices it or orders it to be practiced has almost certainly broken international and domestic law, regardless of whether they will ever be prosecuted for such.

10

Only a psychopath would do some of that shit to another human being. Do we really want psychopaths in charge of our information gathering? Do we really trust them to torture only when necessary and to accurately collect and collate that information? I vote no.

Even if torture were proven to be 100% effective (and it ain’t even close to that) we have to ask questions about the kind of people who would use it and the circumstances. Just assigning the right to group to basically do as they please to any others they please isn’t worth all of the information in the world.

11

And even if they weren’t a psychopath to begin with, and just following orders, the process of torturing is going to turn them into psychopaths.

12

In the present case torture was very effective. They got the prisoners to say exactly what the questioners wanted.

13

I’m not sure that’s true. From what I’ve heard the people who had worked at the concentration camps in Germany during WWII went on to become regular every day people and loving grandparents. I’m sure it gave them PTSD, but that’s different than sociopathy.

14

Several reasons:

  1. As mentioned earlier, information from torture is very likely to be unreliable.

  2. Slippery slope argument: by allowing torture, it opens the gate for other violations of human rights, like lack of a trial.

  3. Eighth Amendment protection: torture clearly qualifies as “cruel” punishment, but if it’s done to everyone, then it’s not “unusual.”

  4. The Decade of Dumb-ass-ness: In the 2000’s, it became OK to ask really dumb questions just because Bush was such an incredible dumbass and anti-intellectual. A lot of electrons were wasted on “discussions” about why torture is bad or why that girl in “I am Legend” never heard of Bob Marley or since it’s cold outside, does that prove that global warming doesn’t exist? Torture is bad, period.

15

And of course, even if some terrorists are really bad people who deserve to be tortured, the problem is that there are no government officials who can be trusted with the power to torture.

16

  1. It’s barbaric.
    Once a society uses it, how do you tell them apart from the terrorists?

  2. It breeds resentment.
    It acts as an effective recuitment for opponents of the torturer. (See UK Government v IRA etc)

Do let us know when you decide that the person you’re blowtorching is actually innocent. :smack:

17

Abu Zubaydah, a member of al Qaeda, provided valuable information when the interrogators were nice to him, but provided no information after waterboarding was used.

18

NPR ran a 30 min. feature/interview/discussion on this with an Army interrogator. NPR #1!

The gist is…with by torturing a prisoner, you inflict discomfort/pain/humiliation/whatever. The prisoner will obviously want to stop that stimulus. To stop that stimulus he will say things which the prisoner believes will make the interrogator happy.

So in the end you have shitty intelligence of undeterminable/dubious veracity.

Being the good cop generates far more actionable intelligence per that Army guy.

see

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/content.aspx?audioID=36694
http://chicagopublicradio.org/search.aspx?q=army%20interrogator

and the classic, lol