I agree entirely. I’m not advocating the use of torture, it’s wrong, period. What I’m arguing against is Whack-a-Mole’s position (and maybe it isn’t his position, but it certainly seemed that way) that torture has never proved useful, and as such is a waste of time anyway.
That just isn’t true. He wanted cites for my assertions that it has indeed yielded good information before in the hands of skilled interrogators, I provided a few, and could provide more.
You’re moving the goalposts.
Heck, I even cited a case upthread where torture achieved results.
What you are on about is that torture is “effective”. You also seem to be channeling the spirit of Doper Fotheringay-Phipps who made the (logically in error) step that any case where torture does not succeed is by definition ineffective torture so therefore any evidence showing torture as a failure cannot be counted. Torture is provably effective because you can only count when it is effective.
“Effective” torture only has meaning in a comparison to other methods. Driving a screw into a wall with a hammer is “effective” if there is literally no other means to get the screw into the wall. It is “ineffective” when compared to using a screwdriver instead.
So too with torture. Has it ever produced results? Sure. Is it the most effective means to gain useful information? Categorically no.
Torture’s only good at eliciting false confessions. In that realm is excels. Other than that it has nothing going for it…worse actually…it is counterproductive.
As has been already mentioned, torture can work to retrieve useful information.
If deceitful information is offered up well then you don’t find a hidden cache of weapons. Or a resistance group. Or it might be truthful information and then you do. So you err on the side of our survival.
Speaking of watching too many movies, it’s pretty hypocritical or maybe just naive for Obama to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan while at the same time objecting to waterboarding… What does he think they are going to do over there?
He thinks you just shoot somebody and they fall over dead?
He’s not considering blown eardrums from bombs exploding not quite near enough to kill someone instantly. He doesn’t consider them writhing on the ground for what must seem like an eternity. Or someone whose lungs have been cooked from incendiary ordinance, or someone who took just a slight bit of 50 cal fire from an Apache and is missing some torso, some leg and prays to die soon.
Waterboarding is a walk in the park compared.
The point is, no American should have these kinds of experiences, so we need to do ALL we can do prevent it. We don’t need to be the good guys in the white hats. We just need to be alive.
Which means you DON’T torture. Torture creates enemies, gives you bad information and dries up the sources of information that are actually useful.
If Americans ( or anyone ) do such things, they should be killed. And I note your philosophy that only Americans count.
By such things, do you mean torture? Or the atrocious carnage inherent in war?
Of course I do know that you abhor torture. So do you think that our fighting men and women should be killed?
If they are torturers, of course. Or invading a country in an aggressive war, but especially torture. Ours, or anyone else’s, soldiers or not. No justification, no excuse is good enough.
I see. So did you consider our invading Iraq an agressive war?
I take your point about the moving goalposts, I had a feeling that I may have mischaracterized your argument and for that I apologize. (You did however request successful examples from history.)
My sole point here was that the effectiveness or otherwise of the torture depends on the skills of the torturer and the character of the victim, and that filters can be used to sift good information from bad. Has it been an effective source of good information in the 20th and 21st centuries? On the whole, no, although there are many instances where it has worked.
Was it ever an effective source of good information? Yes, I believe there are periods in history where the men in charge of the process were expert in obtaining the information they needed.
Let us put it as simply as this. There is a man in your custody who has vital information which you need. If you do not torture him there is no chance at all of obtaining the information (you’ve tried friendly persuasion.) If you do torture him there is a chance that he will provide the information. Put the odds where you like, the situation is no chance as opposed to some chance.
Multiply this a thousandfold. Where is the argument against effectiveness here? What is meant by effective? You usually don’t get the information you need? But the alternative is not to torture, where you will always not get the information you need.
Can it really be argued that it is more effective not to torture than torture? (And I’m talking about the basic process here, not the ramifications of its use.)
D’oh! I thought I was using Quote in my previous post. The post was in reply to Whack-a-Mole.
To expand on my last sentence in that post, it could be argued that one can never separate the process from the ramifications, and it would be a good point. But let us say that there are times when the information is so vital that the need to obtain it outweighs all other factors. (And no, 9/11 was not one of those times.)
I think torture can be effective, if the victim knows something worth torturing him for. Guy Fawkes gave up his accomplices under torture. But what if he’d been acting alone? He’d likely have given up anyone to get the torture to stop. It just so happened that he had someone to legitimately give up, so in that case, torture was effective, but only because of the specific circumstances in which it was used. I don’t think this has anything in particular to do with being a “skilled” torturer.
I would agree that the circumstances and character of the victim play a large part. The fact remains that an inept torturer would produce far less of value than a skilled one (and in those skills I include the sifting of good information from bad.)
…can you explain to me the qualities of a inept torturer, and the qualities of a skilled torturer? How do I get qualified? Is there an assesment programme?
An inept torturer would get bad information, a skilled one good. Are you really denying that some people would be better at getting what they needed than others? More astute at judging whether someone is lying, for instance, knowing when to stop and when to re-apply the torture, etc.
I’d have thought that fairly obvious, but there you go.
As with all human endeavours, it could be done well or badly.
For examples of both I give you the CIA as (in the main) inept torturers and the aforesaid Walsingham as a skilled torturer.
Unfair, perhaps, as Walsingham had access to more exquisite forms of duress (and I use the term exquisite advisedly in its archaic sense), but the comparison holds.
Nonsense; waterboarding can break religious fanatics in a minute or two. The CIA are quite good torturers; they caused great suffering, and got false confessions - the two actual functions of torture. As for Walsingham, you are just asserting that the information that he got was true, and that he got it from torture. If you could travel back in time, I expect that you’d find that the true information he had came from other sources than torture, and that the information he got from torture was lies.
Yes. And those are the people who don’t torture. First, because torture simply isn’t a good means of getting information. And second, because torture is exclusively the practice of monsters. Why would you expect monsters to care about the truth ?
I am God. How do you know I’m telling the truth? God wouldn’t lie about a thing like that.
It’s not enough to say that better information comes from skilled interrogators, and skilled interrogators are those that get better information. We need some independent means of evaluating their accuracy and effectiveness.
P.S. Torture is bad.
Monsters don’t care about the truth? With respect, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. Let’s take the monster who tortures an old man until he reveals the whereabouts of his hidden cash. He doesn’t care whether the answer he receives is true or not?
Of course he wants the truth. Truth is as valuable to monsters as to anybody else
As for Walsingham, your argument has at least the virtue of novelty, putting forward an imaginary time machine against contemporary sources. You’ll forgive me though if I prefer the historical record.
A record written by torturers, or those who employed them. In other words, monsters whose word means nothing.
Right, it’s all an elaborate conspiracy to cover up the fact that he didn’t use torture at all. That makes sense.
You won’t even admit one successful use of torture, will you, even if it flies in the face of all the historical evidence? Why is it so difficult to imagine that the poor victim broke and gave up the goods?
Or more likely that the “information” he got from torture was false. Just as modern torture supporters go on and on about all the supposed Evil Plots they’ve stopped with torture. Of course, all that’s really happening is they are trying to get away with indulging their sadism.