You don’t know. You can’t know until it’s too late. So, if it doesn’t make any difference one way or the other, why torture?
That’s not an argument against torture; it’s an argument against interrogating (asking questions of) anybody.
This sums it up.
But torture works ineffebly, the torturers become inhuman monsters, EVERY TIME.
Reading along with this thread has been very interesting and a few posters deserve congratulations for their performance, especially MEBuckner. It is certainly a depressing prospect that when any factual topic touches on something of political significance, not only will the facts be spun by people on either side of the aisle, but defending against strawmen will be almost mandatory. That someone pointing out the facts has to apply the boilerplate preemptive defense of “not that I support/like/get sexually excited at the thought of torture” is shameful, especially in a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance.
That torture ‘works’ sometimes, in certain contexts and certain cases, is beyond question. That it isn’t useful if you have no way of checking information or no real idea if your subject even knows anything is, likewise, a ‘duh’ statement. And as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, one that applies to interrogation in general. But nobody (as far as I’ve noticed) has been using their same standards and talking about abolishing interrogation because “it never works”. That people may point out how you can torture someone who has no valid information while you don’t even know what information you’re looking for and, lo and behold, your victim don’t give you any valid information? It’s pure obfuscation.
Using obfuscation like that to claim that torture ‘never’ works is a bit like saying sex doesn’t ever work because monogamous gay men never bear children in their relationships.
Yes, sometimes torture works, but even ‘works’ is a relative term. Some but not all French resistance fighters who the Nazis captured did indeed give up secrets under torture. But many of them also included misinformation. McCain, while being tortured, gave up information about his squadron and their target. But he also included tall tales and named the entire roster of the Green Bay Packers as his fellow pilots and only listed sites he’d already known had been hit by bombing, as targets for future bombing.
The reasons for abolishing torture are based in morality and yes, an honest appraisal of its efficacy. Arguing morality is often a fool’s errand, as even the most rationalistic system of morality must be based on assumed, subjective and unprovable axioms. But arguing efficacy is quite possible as long as we’re not distorting the debate. Yes, torture sometimes ‘works’, and in some limited situations, does so better than some standard interrogation techniques. There’s a reason that virtually all criminal cases turn on evidence, and not a confession. It’s a rare criminal who will respond to “Did you do it?” with “Yup. I sure did. Let me show you where the body is too, while I’m at it.”
It’s certainly valid to talk about when and how torture can work… if we really wanted to discuss that. But it seems outside the scope of this thread. As are, I would note, moral/aesthetic/pragmatic arguments for why we should or shouldn’t torture people.
I’m not going to post the boilerplate, either. Anybody honestly interested in my stance on the issue is free to review my posting history on the topic.
I believe this is false. I believe a large majority of criminal cases are resolved with plea agreements, which will inevitably include the criminal confessing in conjunction with his guilty plea. Granted, part of the reason most criminals confess is that there’s sufficient evidence to convict without a confession, but it’s just not true that confessions are rare.
Well, yes, plea bargains are rather common, I believe that the rate is above 90% IIRC.
But if there’s no evidence there’s almost no chance of a plea bargain. I should, probably, have added a bit more nuance to my statement, but I still think my point is valid. Absent the coercive threat of a conviction and a lengthier sentence due to evidence against a defendant, people aren’t eager to admit their guilt.
I’m not aware of a significant percentage of criminal cases in which there’s no evidence to link a criminal with a crime, and no threat of jail time, but they still confess. Are you? I think that’s part of the point… a plea bargain is an attempt to get off with lighter punishment due to the threat of greater punishment. If there wasn’t that threat of greater punishment, there’d be no ‘bargain’, merely a confession.
So I would still say that yes, those cases turn on evidence and not a confession. Absent the evidence (or at least the appearance of evidence), you’ve got a poor chance of getting the confession.
Edit: It’s also worth noting that a number of false confessions are obtained that way, as well. The dynamic remains the same with torture, actually. “Tell us what we want to hear, and you won’t suffer the full extent of what we’ve got planned.”
I basically agree with this, except that I would point out that police are able to obtain confessions in a decent percentage of cases through a variety of means. Also, experienced and ethical investigators will make sure that the confession is corroborated by other information.
You’ve missed my point. I’m well aware that, even with all the safeguards our legal system provides, police officers have the opportunity to bully and browbeat false confessions from innocent detainees. However, this possibility is ameliorated by some significant facts. The first is that, assuming all protocols are followed, police cannot extract confessions through violence. The second is that all detainees are entitled to legal counsel. The third is that, given the aforementioned safeguards, even the most paranoid and overwhelmed suspect can be reasonably confident of living to see his friends and family again. These facts when considered in concert lead me to the reasonable conclusion that innocent people held for questioning in a police station are far less likely to give false confessions than innocent people suffering the tender ministrations of the practised torturer. By and large, they are simply not under anywhere near as much duress.
In short, while you’re correct that no information gathering technique is 100% reliable, the amount of physical and psychological pressure torture victims feel to capitulate to the demands of their torturers makes torture one of the most unreliable methods we have at our disposal. That is why I think it should only ever be used as an absolute last resort, when lives are on the line and we have nothing to lose.
No, you’ve changed your point.
Police interrogation, U.S. style, isn’t the only sort of custodial interrogation I had in mind. And I’m not necessarily talking about confessions, false or otherwise. I’m talking about getting information out of people. This may include a confession, and it may not.
I am happy to concede that torture is more likely to result in a false confession than a custodial interrogation without torture.
Unreliable at what?
No I haven’t. Let’s replay the conversation.
I said:
If we apply this reasoning to the sort of situations which may arise in, say, a global war against Islamic extremism, we can see that the practise of torture may inadvertently darken more avenues of investigation than it illuminates. In practise that costs us time, money, and lives.
And then you said:
And if you question the wrong person, all you’ll get is a mountain of misinformation. (Just ask the Durham Police Department)
And then I said:
- I don’t think that’s a workable comparison. An innocent person in an ordinary police station will likely just reiterate his protestations until his lawyer shows up. Needless to say, the torturers dungeon admits of no such safeguards. *
So, at this point, I’ve made the argument that torture will far more likely elicit a false confession from an innocent person than, say, police questioning. I substantiate this point with the reasoning that the innocent torture victim is more likely to make stuff up because he has more to fear.
And then you said (again):
This applies to any technique of gathering information.
Which is precisely the same objection you raised earlier. And then I said:
I’m well aware that, even with all the safeguards our legal system provides, police officers have the opportunity to bully and browbeat false confessions from innocent detainees. However, this possibility is ameliorated by some significant facts.
And then I went on to list the facts which make it less likely that an innocent person being questioned by the police would be less likely to make stuff up than someone being tortured. This was the point I’ve been making all along and for the life of me I can’t see how it has changed in any way.
Well, then, we are in agreement, because that is precisely what I’ve been arguing all along 
At getting accurate information. And not only does it make the torture extracted information less trustworthy, it forever taints information gained from the victim by any other method, since he/she is going to be afraid you will do it again, and will naturally lie.
Are you claiming that it accomplished something when they first began torturing the prisoners at Guantanamo? I don’t remember reading anything about those detainees providing any kind of useful intelligence, but I could easily be wrong.
Lol. You left out this part:
I don’t think that’s what you said before, but I don’t think it’s worth arguing. Anyway, you don’t seem to grasp the fact that extracting information is not necessarily the same thing as extracting a confession.
I’m not sure about that. I can certainly think of situations where torture would be a more effective method of getting accurate information than just interrogation.
I can’t. According to everything I’ve ever heard, the exact opposite is true. Every time the torturers took over, the flow of accurate information stopped. Good interrogators don’t torture, for the simple reason that it’s not very good at producing anything except what you want to hear.
Not that it matters, since torture is wrong. As far as I’m concerned anyone who engages in it should be imprisoned for life or executed. No excuses.
Let’s have some cites then.
:rolleyes:
I’ll look for some. Although I notice that you don’t provide any for torture actually working. Bit of a double standard.
This from the person who thinks torture is justified.
Not really. I didn’t base my claim on what I heard from many sources.
:rolleyes:
Such a deep and insightful explanation of your position.
Here’s a hint: Read the very first post in this thread. If you really want me to spell things out for you, I will.