And it gives some people a big woody.
First, the sort of people who torture typically don’t care about truth, or about the consequences to others if they don’t get that truth. They care about getting the answers they want to hear, or indulging their sadism. And if New York gets nuked because they were indulging themselves, they won’t care any more than they cared about the screams of their victims. Expecting monsters to care about the welfare of others is foolish, and only monsters torture.
Second, part of the POINT of torture is that you can get a random guy off the street to confess despite being innocent.
And third, there’s a good chance that the guys who actually set the bomb are the ones who turned your torture victim in for being a bomber, because they knew you’d torture him into confessing the “truth” and you’d go off on a false trail. Or that he was turned in for bounty money, by people who knew the same thing.
Since they ARE monsters I wouldn’t expect them to care about other people in any way. On the other hand, they probably would care about being imprisoned for life or killed, which is a good reason to do so.
I agree that I could do that, but I bet I disagree with you on the circumstances that would have to occur for me to do that.
Der Trihs, this is why it’s extremely frustrating to talk with you about anything. You don’t make arguments, you just state conclusions. That’s why I called you an idiot above. We are talking about the OLC’s opinion about whether certain actions are torture for purposes of certain laws, so you just saying “It is torture, they are monsters, it is not effective!!!” is not relevant at all to the debate.
Jesus Christ, is Zotti still being a cunt about this stuff? I thought that was over.
Fuck you, you tough-talking disgrace to my country. Go live in Syria if you want torture to be an approved state activity.
But it isn’t. It never is. It doesn’t work. Torture does not get you accurate information, by its very nature. It can’t. So stop building these ridiculous scenarios, because real life doesn’t work that way.
Not all sure that was directed at you. Pendng clairification.
Do you have a cite for this? I keep hearing it, but I can only imagine myself being tortured. Yeah, if I hadn’t done anything I’d make shit up, but if I did know something and thought it would make the torture stop, I’d tell them everything I knew. Maybe you guys are tougher than I am, I dunno. I AM NOT advocating torture. I’m only asking about the ability of torture to get people to tell you what they know.
The thing is that torture doesn’t get you accurate information. Making someone hurt will get them to tell you whatever they think you want to hear so the pain will stop. This isn’t always the truth, and it’s not as if you had another way of finding out, or you wouldn’t be pouring water on his face,. It’s not a matter of toughness, it’s simply a matter of what people do.
If you knew for a fact that Achmed is in Morocco, but your torturer keeps saying, “Tell us Achmed is in Phoenix,” you’d stick to your guns and tell the truth?
I imagine that if you had enough previous information to confirm part of what he was telling you then you could get useful information. Otherwise, I’d agree. That would be true of any interrogation method, though.
Why would any interrogator ask you that closed question if he was really after information and wasn’t just a sadist? I think he’d ask open questions like, “Tell us where Achmed is?” And only after a series of questions where you could confirm their truthfulness.
How does the torturer know which one you’re doing? If he has some independent means of confirming, why is he torturing you in the first place? And if he doesn’t, the intelligence you’re providing is meaningless.
Because that’s what they want you to say.
Maybe someone who didn’t know anything made up some shit and said, “Achmed is in Phoenix, now please get this vise off my nuts.” They come to you and say, “We know you’re lying, we know Achmed is not in Morocco, not give me those fingernails.”
We can’t really squabble about scruples if waterboarding is deemed hunky-dory.
Of course, but that applies to all interrogations, doesn’t it?
You may find the sorry tale of Abu Zubadayah instructive. Its all over the nets, you can find it in a bunch of places.
We got him. For whatever reason, our CIA honchos believed that he was a very highly placed guy, probably for the same reason they announce they’ve killed the No. 3 guy over and over…
Anyway, they went the calm route, treated him pretty well, took care of his wounds, and he talked, gave up some useful stuff. But it turns out he wasn’t as much a heavyweight as had been thought, he didn’t know anything that important. Useful, not earth-shattering.
So the CIA honchos insisted that he knew more than he was telling, since they already knew for sure and for certain that he was who they thought he was. So they ordered much harsher techniques applied. (I’ll skip over descriptions of all that, I don’t want to take time from posting to run and hurl…)
But he wasn’t who they thought he was! So, he began to make stuff up, and the wild goose chases began. And, of course, they didn’t change their minds when the stuff turned out to be crap, they just convinced themselves that he was feeding them shit and keeping the real stuff from them, and if they just applied a little more torture, he would give up the gold. Which he probably would have, if he fucking had any!
Hell, when he ran out of real names to give up, he most likely gave up fake ones, innocent people who, we would then believe, are highly placed AlQ operatives. So then what happens? We grab people who don’t know diddly squat, and when they protest that they are innocent and don’t know anything…we assume they are lying, and start torturing more false leads out of them! Because they are going to tell us stuff, and we won’t believe the truth, so lies are all the remain.
And the real bad guys? As soon as they know we got Abu Z, the review what he knows, what he can give up, and start in neutralizing the damage. Of course they do, wouldn’t you? Whatever safe houses he knows about are shut down, whatever guys he can give up are alerted to bolt, whatever codes he knows are abandoned. And so, effectively, all he knows are what was true yesterday. Not today!
elucidator, I don’t think you haven’t proven anything here. There is nothing stopping him from making stuff up in any scenario. The interrogator could have said, “Hey, we’ve been treating you well and this is how you return the favour? By holding things back?”. Abu starts thinking about what would make his friend happy and starts spouting nonsense. I do think in this scenario it might be easier to detect lies, though. A relaxed person is probably easier to read as to whether they are telling the truth.
It would be difficult for a torturer to admit that they got little or no actionable information. That is why ,when they claim they have, I am skeptical. But even if they have squeezed out a little, there has been a huge price paid. America is a country that tortures. We did before but covered it up. Now every body knows. I liked it better when we could pretend we were the shiny light ion the hill,the beacon that would lead other countries to the right path. Now we attack countries that are not a threat and have not attacked us. And we are torturers.
If we wish to gain back any status and recapture our international respect ,we have to admit what we did and punish the perpetrators.
We have been diminished.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/middleeast/18zubaydah.html?hp
The sorry-ass story of Abu Z, as related by the NY Times…
Here’s the thing, though: if you treat him sympathetically, gradually he wants to tell you the truth. The thing stopping him from making shit up is the relationship you’ve built. That’s why it works, and torture doesn’t.
We should take a moment to emphasize that no white men in nicely pressed suits were actually kicked in the nuts. Because that would be wrong.