*Clinton said that when it comes to fighting terrorism, “Another thing we know that does not work, based on lots of empirical evidence, is torture.”
When it comes to the real goal of getting useful intelligence, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the details interrogators will get from a detainee can typically be acquired without torture. When torture is used, the “information” extracted is likely to be fiction created by a prisoner who will say anything to get the punishment to stop.
All ethical issues aside, the experts say, it doesn’t work because it is extremely inefficient and, in many ways, counterproductive.*
What about the undeniable fact that inevitably, persons who have no knowledge whatsoever of what is being asked, end up being tortured? I never see proponents of torture addressing this issue. Is there an assumption that since these people are in custody, they must be guilty of something, is it just immaterial, or what?
I am strongly opposed to torture. But the above post makes me wonder a psychological question: Wouldn’t it be very difficult to concoct a consistent and well-fabricated lie when in the midst of extreme pain?
Maybe you’re telling the truth to get the torture to stop, but the other 3 guys they picked up that night, guys who aren’t connected to you and have no knowledge of what you’re up to, all admit to being terrorists and provide their own stories just to make the torture stop. Now we’ve got 4 stories and only one of them is the truth.
Now torture a few hundred people and you see the problem. It’s not that torture can never elicit useful information, it’s that it fails to do so in any consistently useful way.
That’s a too-dismissive analysis. I think the torturers would know quite specifically what they’re looking for, and that they could easily spot inconsistencies or “that doesn’t sound right”-isms…
Im of this opinion also; torture works, or, torture can work. This is not to say im in favour of torture, but I think the belief that “torture doesn’t work” is a convenient fib an open society tells itself.
This is not the real problem with torture. The real reason torture doesn’t work is less the issue of false negatives, i.e people not revealing information they do know under duress, as it is the problem of false positives, i.e people bullshitting because they think that’s what the torturer wants to hear.
Let me put it this way: If I strapped a pair of exceedingly powerful electrodes to your scrotum and applied current whilst bellowing “Tell me where the bomb is/who your co-conspirators are/who killed Elvis!”, I guarantee you that you would very soon provide me with an answer whether or not said bomb, co-conspirators or Elvis-murderers existed in the first place - and intelligence-gathering is a vague enough science that one is very rarely absolutely certain of what the person being tortured knows.
I asked a very simple question, with a yes or no answer. Would you or would you not give up the combo of your safe if someone was torturing your spouse? There is no need to complicate the hypothetical any more than that.
The claim is “torture doesn’t work”. I think it can work, under certain circumstances that I outlined above. The OP has offered no proof that torture does not work, but simply repeats the oft-heard claim that it doesn’t.
Torture can work…in very narrow or specific circumstances.
John Mace in post #5 above gives one example…trading in your valuables to save a loved one from pain and torture–is pretty simple. Giving in knowing it would lead to the death of some people you don’t know…maybe harder. Speaking due to torture (of you or a loved one) knowing that answering will lead to the death of your baby…maybe not.
Torture can also work when the torturers don’t care about the truth…they only want you to admit too whatever they want you to say–see the “Witch Trials” of the 16-18th centuries or some of the Korean War or Vietnam examples.
Where torture fails is (as others above have mentioned) in trying to pull a fact from people who may (or may not) know that fact. That is where it is problematic.
Torture is a good way to get confessiobs, so it works in that sense. The problem comes in making sure the confessions are factually true, but if you don’t care if they are or not, it’s not a problem.
You can use the same logic to show that offering any concessions for information won’t work. After all would you rather be waterboarded or imprisoned for six months? Since people will lie to stop torture they will also lie to receive less prison time. Should everyone in jail who was convicted on the basis of a cooperative cohort be released?
The issue is that any type of interrogation can yield poor information if used poorly. If used correctly torture would be almost 100% effective. That does not mean it is ethical, but it is just wishful thinking to say it is not effective.
Nah, the fib is that torture work, a lie we tell ourselves out of some David Mamet-esque conviction that it takes guts to do what must be done and make the hard calls, i.e. doing the wrong thing.
The claim is that “torture doesn’t work”, in the context of intelligence gathering. Certainly pain can cause compliant behavior, like opening a safe or refraining from hitting one’s little sister.