# Torture doesn't work

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 30, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656 "2016-03-30T17:53:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/381 "2016-05-28T16:40:21Z")

</div>

> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#):
>
> **Damuri** , true or false:  
> Spending one’s entire savings on lotto tickets to ensure a happy retirement doesn’t work.

I’m not sure wtf that has to do with anything other than the fact that you have connected torture with the lottery in your mind. Do you seriously think that analogizing torture to the lottery makes any fucking sense at all?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/382 "2016-05-28T18:28:46Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> This is wrong anyhow, remember your premise is that the research does not exist, you were wrong. It is just that simple. Your point is really just based on propping up an argument from ignorance and you are calling that “a valid effort”.

What research are you talking about? If you are talking about someone’s spin on history annotated with their opinion, then I guess you have cited some research but NONE of it is even remotely scientific.

> [@](#):
>
> The fun thing is that the research I linked to does point at the Sere training as not being representative of real life conditions because the use of it depends on willfully ignoring that the high number of false confessions obtained that way are. (But thanks for acknowledging that it is not research nor published science, it was just training)

Here is the only statement I found regarding SERE in your cited article:

"predictability problem can be avoided by  
engaging only in objective questioning, something that apparently does not happen in real world  
interrogations, given the CIA’s and later the military’s reliance on SERE methods originally used by the  
Chinese to extract forced (and false) confessions.63 Thus, interrogational torture is not predictable. "

So it dismisses the fact that SERE exercises ALWAYS result in the prinsoner divulging the required information because the Chinese used it to extract false confessions? I am pretty sure taht everyone willagree that torture can be used to extract false confessions. I don’t see how that fact makes torture so unpredictable as to be ineffective.

> [@](#):
>
> As the research I’m referring is behind a paywall (and really all of your objection are risible, starting with your premise that just because you can not see it it is then useless), one should at least look at the draft the research made before the final paper.
> 
> [Redirect Notice](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjDytSLyfrMAhVPxmMKHUXBCYkQFgglMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthemonkeycage.org%2FSchiemann-torture.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHP0y56GZbnJsiXPneAImlzpsgp0Q&sig2=ugWoqDF3RPM4ZSa00PGm9w&bvm=bv.122676328,d.cGc&cad=rja)

Thanks for the cite. Here are a few sentences I think you might have missed:

“Despite the importance of the question, there is little consensus among policy-makers, academics, or even interrogators on whether interrogational torture works”

“Rejali acknowledges that “the empirical material…is…too fragmentary to allow for  
precise, validated causal claims.””

The article assumes in its example that the interrogator knows very little about the prisoner. No idea if they know anything and no idea if they are going to put up a fight before revealing information. The interrogator doesn’t know when to stop so they don’t. It also assumes that the prisoner knows nothing about the interrogator. They realize the torture is inevitable and nothing you say can make the interrogator stop so you might as well keep your mouth shut. The article seems to acknowledge the sensitivity to these sort of game scenarios to the underlying assumptions. If I alternatively assume that the interrogator knows that the suspect knows something and the interrogator knows when they have extracted the information, then a prisoner who knows that the interrogator will not stop until they receive the information but will stop when they receive the information has every incentive to provide the information. This is the dynamic we see in SERE training.

As I have mentioned in the past. Torture is not a sonic screwdriver of interrogation. It is not a multi-tool that works in every situation and may not be very useful for fishing expeditions. The closer we can get to the second set of assumptions and away from the first, the more likely torture is to be effective.

The article seems to be saying that in order to be regarded as effective then the method of interrogation but be effective. Effective is defined as reliable and consistent and then proceeds to show why torture is neither reliable nor consistent. What it fails to consider is that no other interrogation technique is likely to meet those standards of reliability or consistency. But this seems justified by the fact that torture is so horrible. The time to weigh the moral implications of torture are not during the stage of judging its efficacy relative to other methods of interrogation. it is after the relative efficacy has been measured.

In summation the article is not saying "torture simply doesn’t work. It is saying “assuming all these things, then torture does not achieve a level of reliability or consistency that no other method of interrogation would meet but I think torture should meet because torture is so fucking horrible”

> [@](#):
>
> And thank you here for reporting to me and others that you are not paying attention, the recent bump of this thread pointed to yet another factcheck that shot down yet another misguided proponent of Torture.
> 
> [PolitiFact | Waterboarding works, US Senate candidate (and former CIA officer) Todd Wilcox says](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/may/24/todd-wilcox/waterboarding-works-us-senate-candidate-todd-wilco/)

Politifact? This is what polifact says:

“Wilcox didn’t provide concrete proof and experts say virtually none exists. We rate the statement False.” The experts in this case are avowed opponents of the use of torture. It puts the word of a College professor that is a firm opponent of torture ahead of the word of a CIA operative that claims he used torture to extract information.

> [@](#):
>
> As pointed before you are only demonstrating that you are still tossing under the bus the one expert that you cited early. He was the beesnees when telling you how torture may work, but after he checked how it did turn out in real life (by checking the senate torture report) he came to tell us that indeed, “torture doesn’t work”. You are still going with the absolute that we should drop the common use of “x does not work” You may calle it bullshit, but in reality it is more accurate than saying that “torture works” because the later is misleading in the extreme.

The fact that it takes so much effort to describe what you mean by torture works means that saying “torture simply doesn’t work” is bullshit. Its really that simple. The statement "torture simply doesn’t work is not a nuanced, its a blunt instrument trying to convince people that there is no rational basis for torture in any circumstance.

> [@](#):
>
> It is like if you are demanding here that we take as a lesson that groups like the CDC are telling us bullshit because they report that “the ‘natural way’ the anti vaccine people is demanding does not work”, not going to happen. ( **and no one is calling that bullshit even when one does acknowledge that there are exceptions where the anti vaccine people have a point** )

This is not a case of highlighting the exception to undermine a scientific consensus. Even your article agrees that no such consensus exists. This is a rebuttal of an absolutist statement whose purpose is to shut down debate. We have a fairly controlled experiment in the SERE training, your argument seems to be “well the experiment is TOO controlled.”

> [@](#):
>
> Sorry, but the reality is that a lot of why this has show up again is because the trash of Trump is percolating from many sources. That you want to avoid dealing with the current events that you are indirectly helping has to be said, even if you do not like it.

Sorry but the reality is that this thread has been going pretty strong without much interruption since its inception in march and Trump didn’t enter the thread until several pages later. Inserting trump is simply a form of Gdowinization and might be a good sign that you realize that you have lost the debate and need to resort to smearing people with Trump to get them to shut up.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/383 "2016-05-28T19:58:09Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> I’m not sure wtf that has to do with anything other than the fact that you have connected torture with the lottery in your mind. Do you seriously think that analogizing torture to the lottery makes any fucking sense at all?

Spoken like a person who knows that a simple answer to a simple question will destroy 8 pages of argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/384 "2016-05-28T21:24:29Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> What research are you talking about? If you are talking about someone’s spin on history annotated with their opinion, then I guess you have cited some research but NONE of it is even remotely scientific.

> **[American Experience | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/)**
>
> Watch full films from TV's most-watched history series.

> [@](#):
>
> Game theory studies interactive decision-making, where the outcome for each participant or “player” depends on the actions of all. If you are a player in such a game, when choosing your course of action or “strategy” you must take into account the choices of others. But in thinking about their choices, you must recognize that they are thinking about yours, and in turn trying to take into account your thinking about their thinking, and so on.
> 
> It would seem that such thinking about thinking must be so complex and subtle that its successful practice must remain an arcane art. Indeed, some aspects such as figuring out the true motives of rivals and recognizing complex patterns do often resist logical analysis. **But many aspects of strategy can be studied and systematized into a science – game theory.**
> 
> A Theory is Born  
> \*\*This _science_ is unusual in the breadth of its potential applications. \*\*Unlike physics or chemistry, which have a clearly defined and narrow scope, the precepts of game theory are useful in a whole range of activities, from everyday social interactions and sports to business and economics, politics, law, diplomacy and war. Biologists have recognized that the Darwinian struggle for survival involves strategic interactions, and modern evolutionary theory has close links with game theory.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> As I have mentioned in the past. Torture is not a sonic screwdriver of interrogation. It is not a multi-tool that works in every situation and may not be very useful for fishing expeditions. The closer we can get to the second set of assumptions and away from the first, the more likely torture is to be effective.

Since the article does deal with what was observed in the past and it is using valid scientific theories you re missing the point that it is telling us that it is describing also the reason why torture fails to be reliable.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> The article seems to be saying that in order to be regarded as effective then the method of interrogation but be effective. Effective is defined as reliable and consistent and then proceeds to show why torture is neither reliable nor consistent. What it fails to consider is that no other interrogation technique is likely to meet those standards of reliability or consistency. But this seems justified by the fact that torture is so horrible. The time to weigh the moral implications of torture are not during the stage of judging its efficacy relative to other methods of interrogation. it is after the relative efficacy has been measured.
> 
> In summation the article is not saying "torture simply doesn’t work. It is saying “assuming all these things, then torture does not achieve a level of reliability or consistency that no other method of interrogation would meet but I think torture should meet because torture is so fucking horrible”

Missing the point, again:

> [@](#):
>
> Even in the hands of a pragmatic state, then, a state which prefers not to torture innocent detainees and does not wish to torture if it receives valuable information, torture is far more likely to produce no information or false information than it is likely to produce valuable information. 33
> 
> Furthermore, torture is not predictable. The same combination of beliefs that make valuable information from a knowledgeable detainee possible also make ambiguous information possible. Consequently, the state will often be unable to distinguish between useful and non-useful information even when it is communicated. Finally, the pragmatic state will torture – and torture harshly – much of the time. It will torture innocent detainees and will even torture detainees who have already provided it valuable information.

> [@](#):
>
> The question as to whether – in reality – interrogational torture actually works, actually provides us with vital information we otherwise would not get is one of the pressing moral questions of our time. The debate over this question suggests that this reality needs probing and the probing offered here suggests we reconsider whether the United States should sanction interrogational torture.

In the end the point is that it is the torture proponents the ones that need to demonstrate that it works. Very little has come forth in matter of evidence and then one can put the successes in the same probability area as winning the lottery.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Politifact? This is what polifact says:
> 
> “Wilcox didn’t provide concrete proof and experts say virtually none exists. We rate the statement False.” The experts in this case are avowed opponents of the use of torture. It puts the word of a College professor that is a firm opponent of torture ahead of the word of a CIA operative that claims he used torture to extract information.

We know already that the one you painted at turned later to say that “torture does not work” I defer to him more than your non-expert opinion.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> The fact that it takes so much effort to describe what you mean by torture works means that saying “torture simply doesn’t work” is bullshit. Its really that simple. The statement "torture simply doesn’t work is not a nuanced, its a blunt instrument trying to convince people that there is no rational basis for torture in any circumstance.

Again you are just grasping at straws, by the same logic we should tell the CDC that it is bullshitting us for telling us that “vaccines work” (In a reverse example) Or the biologists saying that "Science works, bitches!. 🙂 Since it is clear that you will not do such a thing, nor many of the experts out there, I think one should continue to do what the common meaning tell us, by dismissing such talk that it is bullshit to tell others that **“torture does not work”** because it is not. The reality is that doing the opposite is being grossly misleading, and indeed more close to what bullshit is.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> This is not a case of highlighting the exception to undermine a scientific consensus. Even your article agrees that no such consensus exists. This is a rebuttal of an absolutist statement whose purpose is to shut down debate. We have a fairly controlled experiment in the SERE training, your argument seems to be “well the experiment is TOO controlled.”

Point to order, SERE is not a controlled experiment, nor science. The reality is that you have demanded science and none has come from you, at all.

And that is a straw you are grasping, the article’s point is that **the torture proponents have not demonstrated that torture works** , the published paper (that is based on an accepted scientific tool) points to game theory as giving us even more evidence that torture is not effective and not likely to work under real world conditions.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Sorry but the reality is that this thread has been going pretty strong without much interruption since its inception in march and Trump didn’t enter the thread until several pages later. Inserting trump is simply a form of Gdowinization and might be a good sign that you realize that you have lost the debate and need to resort to smearing people with Trump to get them to shut up.

The “interruption” you are talking about is just you trying to avoid what is going on, you have to realize that the ones that are talking about giving torture a level of effectiveness that it is not there is coming nowadays from many of the followers of Donald Trump. It is important then to realize that discussions like this one are not happening in a vacuum, as much as you would like it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/385 "2016-05-29T16:27:41Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> Spoken like a person who knows that a simple answer to a simple question will destroy 8 pages of argument.

So if I say that lotteries are a bad idea for retirement planning that somehow means that torture doesn’t work? That’s retarded.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/386 "2016-05-29T16:47:36Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> So if I say that lotteries are a bad idea for retirement planning that somehow means that torture doesn’t work? That’s retarded.

Nope, it is basically the same logic. It is what tell us that the saying of “torture works” is the retarded one. As shown many times already (and even the military experience guy that you pointed early told us) saying that “torture does not work” may have some issues and exceptions to the rule, but it is not bullshit.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/387 "2016-05-29T17:05:31Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> [American Experience | Official Site | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nash/sfeature/sf_dixit.html)

OK I agree that game theory exists and is valid. I don’t see any game theory research that shows that torture doesn’t work in your link. I did a word search and the word torture doesn’t pop up.

> [@](#):
>
> Since the article does deal with what was observed in the past and it is using valid scientific theories you re missing the point that it is telling us that it is describing also the reason why torture fails to be reliable.

In some cases that is true, and in other cases that is not true. It is especially not true when compared to the reliability of other methods of interrogation.

[quoteMissing the point, again: [/quote]

So the conclusion is that if a PARTICULAR SET OF ASSUMPTIONS is true then “torture is far more likely to produce no information or false information than it is likely to produce valuable information.”

> [@](#):
>
> In the end the point is that it is the torture proponents the ones that need to demonstrate that it works. Very little has come forth in matter of evidence and then one can put the successes in the same probability area as winning the lottery.

SERE training record a 100% information retrieval rate. So in situations liek they have in SERE training, its like a lottery where you have to pick a number from one to ten and you get ten guesses. The chances of winning a normal lottery might be one in a million. Are you seriously arguing that torture only produces valuable information one time out of a million or anything approaching that?

You haven’t even proven that torture is less reliable than other means of interrogation. The only thing you have proven is that torture will replace some null sets with false information (IOW, prisoners with no information will fabricate information under torture where they would just say they don’t know anything under conventional means of interrogation). This ignores the fact that the knowledge level of the prisoner is not random. It also ignores any situations where a knowledgable prisoner will divulge valuable information.

> [@](#):
>
> We know already that the one you painted at turned later to say that “torture does not work” I defer to him more than your non-expert opinion.

Once again, your entire argument seems to rely on opinions rather than facts.

> [@](#):
>
> Again you are just grasping at straws, by the same logic we should tell the CDC that it is bullshitting us for telling us that “vaccines work”

Like I said in the post you are responding to, this is not a case of emphasizing exceptions in order to undermine a scientific consensus so comparing it to vaccines is a particularly inappropriate analogy. There is no scientific consensus on the efficacy of torture, there is only opinion and anecdote. The closest thing we have to a controlled experiment we have results in a 100% success rate for torture. That at leas its an argument that torture works. Now prove that a consitent 100% success rate achieved during SERE training is an aberration and that the REAL efficacy of torture is almost the exact opposite of that?

> [@](#):
>
> (In a reverse example) Or the biologists saying that "Science works, bitches!. 🙂 Since it is clear that you will not do such a thing, nor many of the experts out there, I think one should continue to do what the common meaning tell us, by dismissing such talk that it is bullshit to tell others that **“torture does not work”** because it is not. The reality is that doing the opposite is being grossly misleading, and indeed more close to what bullshit is.

“Torture simply doesn’t work” is an inaccurate statement and no amount of verbal weaselling is going to change that.

> [@](#):
>
> Point to order, SERE is not a controlled experiment, nor science. The reality is that you have demanded science and none has come from you, at all.

I said its the closest we have. There is no control group and I don’t know what a control group would do to change the significance of a 100% success rate but the experiment is controlled in the sense that we are changing the subject of the experiment and subjecting them to the same form of torture (waterboarding) and getting the same results despite the change in subject. Am I using the concept of controlled experiment incorrectly?

So perhaps the 100% success rate of torture in some circumstances is not science, istm that it is but I don’t want to get into a semantic debate about whether or not a process that leads to a 100% success rate is science or not. I am not the one that has to defend the statement that “torture simply doesn’t work” That is a statement made by YOUR side of the argument. You have the burden of proving that torture simply doesn’t work. I don’t have to produce science that torture works at least sometimes when i can provide anecdotes. Your response to those anecdotes is an analogy with lotteries and broken clock which are clearly silly and inappropriate.

> [@](#):
>
> And that is a straw you are grasping, the article’s point is that **the torture proponents have not demonstrated that torture works** , the published paper (that is based on an accepted scientific tool) points to game theory as giving us even more evidence that torture is not effective and not likely to work under real world conditions.

As I have pointed out the game theory presented in the paper relies on the “rules” an assumptions underlying the game. The SERE training seems to reliably and consistently produce the desired result. SERE training simulates real world conditions as closely as it can. The fact that the SERE prisoner KNOWS that he will not be killed doesn’t seem like it would reduce the incentive to keep his mouth shut. The fact that he also know that talking won’t actually result in people dying might but I can’t imagine that the sort of guys that undergo Navy Seal training approach it with the attitude that its all just for funsies so we can go ahead and talk.

> [@](#):
>
> The “interruption” you are talking about is just you trying to avoid what is going on, you have to realize that the ones that are talking about giving torture a level of effectiveness that it is not there is coming nowadays from many of the followers of Donald Trump. It is important then to realize that discussions like this one are not happening in a vacuum, as much as you would like it.

The discussion of torture. particularly THIS discussion of torture predates Trump’s involvement. This is just a form of godwiniation and should make you wonder if you have already lost your argument when you have to resort to saying “you know who ELSE supports torture?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/388 "2016-05-29T17:17:32Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Once again, your entire argument seems to rely on opinions rather than facts.
> 
> As I have pointed out the game theory presented in the paper relies on the “rules” an assumptions underlying the game. The SERE training seems to reliably and consistently produce the desired result. SERE training simulates real world conditions as closely as it can. The fact that the SERE prisoner KNOWS that he will not be killed doesn’t seem like it would reduce the incentive to keep his mouth shut. The fact that he also know that talking won’t actually result in people dying might but I can’t imagine that the sort of guys that undergo Navy Seal training approach it with the attitude that its all just for funsies so we can go ahead and talk.

Again, we have posted cite after cite saying torture doesnt work. So, you saying “your entire argument seems to rely on opinions rather than facts” means you are ignoring our cites- even tho you have responded to them. Do you have some sort of short term memory issue?😕

Yes, the fact that there are no repercussions to spilling your guts, no long term consequences and no chance of being killed afterwards totally invalidates the results. Also, of course since you KNOW the “tirture” will stop, why not just give in? But in the real world, the torture doesnt stop.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/389 "2016-05-29T19:34:59Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> OK I agree that game theory exists and is valid. I don’t see any game theory research that shows that torture doesn’t work in your link. I did a word search and the word torture doesn’t pop up.

I guess **DrDeth** is right, you forgot right away the professor that used game theory on the torture issue.

A lot of your augments can be dismissed like that as it is clear that what it is inconvenient to you is dismissed in the silliest of ways.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Once again, your entire argument seems to rely on opinions rather than facts.

Like this one, once again you are pretending the we should forget that the most experienced person that you pointed out as a supporter of your views turned to look at the evidence and told us in the end that “torture doesn’t work”.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Like I said in the post you are responding to, this is not a case of emphasizing exceptions in order to undermine a scientific consensus so comparing it to vaccines is a particularly inappropriate analogy. There is no scientific consensus on the efficacy of torture, there is only opinion and anecdote. The closest thing we have to a controlled experiment we have results in a 100% success rate for torture. That at leas its an argument that torture works. Now prove that a consitent 100% success rate achieved during SERE training is an aberration and that the REAL efficacy of torture is almost the exact opposite of that?

The reality is that the published paper also pointed at the SERE training and noted that your “100%” success is based on a situation where the “torturers” are omniscient. Game theory showed that SERE can not be applied to real life just as the senate report showed **later**.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> “Torture simply doesn’t work” is an inaccurate statement and no amount of verbal weaselling is going to change that.

And so it follows that “vaccines work” or “science works” are inaccurate. :rolleyes: Good luck in trying to convince the followers of common usage or common sense to follow your dictates. Again the opposite is bullshit, saying that “torture works” is a lot less accurate than the common usage that matches the reality better.

As for relying on SERE again, you are once again conveniently forgetting that those training reports you are using are based on testimonials and not reviewed science or real life. The reality is that the professor that used game theory did take your “trump card” and dismissed it already. The fact is that many even before the professor applied the science of game theory have looked at your old SERE chestnut and just like a poster that early knew as a “fact” that torture worked to get Himmler your reliance on SERE is most likely based on tall tales from the ones that still propose that torture is a good idea. As pointed before even SERE was twisted and **failed** to be effective when applied to real life.

[https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/origins-sere-and-using-torture-even-when-it-doesnt-work](https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/origins-sere-and-using-torture-even-when-it-doesnt-work)

> **[Out of the Darkness](https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/torture/out-darkness?redirect=feature%2Fout-darkness)**
>
> How two psychologists teamed up with the CIA to devise a torture program and experiment on human beings.

> [@](#):
>
> Mitchell and Jessen were two former U.S. military psychologists contracted by the CIA to design, develop, and run the agency’s detention, rendition, and interrogation operations. As psychologists in the U.S. military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program, the two men had devoted their careers to training U.S. troops to resist abusive treatment in case of capture by governments that violate the Geneva Conventions. SERE teaches resistance by subjecting students to carefully controlled versions of harsh techniques used by China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union, often to extract false confessions from captives for propaganda purposes. During training, psychologists like Mitchell and Jessen are on hand to monitor trainees’ psychological well-being and to ensure that SERE instructors don’t go too far.
> 
> But Mitchell and Jessen intensified and manipulated SERE techniques so they bore little relation to those used on SERE recruits. Whereas SERE training was intended to help strengthen the resolve of American recruits, Mitchell and Jessen’s techniques were designed to achieve the exact opposite result: to break detainees and turn their minds into putty in interrogators’ hands.

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> The discussion of torture. particularly THIS discussion of torture predates Trump’s involvement. This is just a form of godwiniation and should make you wonder if you have already lost your argument when you have to resort to saying “you know who ELSE supports torture?”

And of course you only show that you are not even aware of what Godwin was about:

> **[Nazi analogies](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law)**
>
> Nazi analogies are fallacies that use the extremely negative perception that Hitler and National Socialism (Nazism) have in the modern world to boost someone's opinions.

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

It doe snot refer to winning the argument.  
BTW, as I never mentioned Hitler or the nazis, nor Godwin, It follows then that you are the one losing the discussion. 🙂

The point here is that your insistence on not dealing with why Trump is mentioned **only shows us even more ignorance from your part**. Please check the OP, Clinton had her torture comments made when she told in a speech that “torture does not work”. She mentioned Trump in the same speech letting us also know that besides being wrong on torture:

[https://www.hillaryclinton.com/speeches/remarks-counterterrorism-stanford-university/](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/speeches/remarks-counterterrorism-stanford-university/)

> [@](#):
>
> Putin already hopes to divide Europe. If Mr. Trump gets his way, it’ll be like Christmas in the Kremlin. It will make America less safe—and the world more dangerous.

Her speech then had a clear meaning: to show how wrong Trump was regarding this issue and the FactCheck people did agree with her.

And besides not being effective in real life as the proponents claim there is the added reason that when the enemy does know that torture is happening (to even innocent captives) it is an excellent recruiting tool for our enemies.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/390 "2016-05-30T00:22:36Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> So if I say that lotteries are a bad idea for retirement planning that somehow means that torture doesn’t work? That’s retarded.

Sorry “lotteries are a bad idea for retirement” was not the statement. The statement was:

“Spending one’s entire savings on lotto tickets to ensure a happy retirement doesn’t work”

Do you feel this statement is True or False?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/391 "2016-05-30T00:35:24Z")

</div>

True unless…you win.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/392 "2016-05-30T03:36:08Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> And of course you only show that you are not even aware of what Godwin was about:
> 
> [Nazi analogies - RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law)  
> “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
> 
> It doe snot refer to winning the argument.  
> BTW, as I never mentioned Hitler or the nazis, nor Godwin, It follows then that you are the one losing the discussion. 🙂

\*\*Damuri Ajashi \*\*, obviously, is not referring to “Godwin” as in a literal direct reference to Nazis or Hitler. He means 'Godwin" in the sense that saying that invoking Trump is akin to invoking Nazis or Hitler, in the sense that Trump is viewed as a villain and that what Trump does or says is considered to be bad because Trump is Trump, hence why it is used as a rhetorical device.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/393 "2016-05-30T03:37:39Z")

</div>

> [@Velocity](#):
>
> \*\*Damuri Ajashi \*\*, obviously, is not referring to “Godwin” as in a literal direct reference to Nazis or Hitler. He means 'Godwin" in the sense that saying that invoking Trump is akin to invoking Nazis or Hitler, in the sense that Trump is viewed as a villain and that what Trump does or says is considered to be bad because Trump is Trump, hence why it is used as a rhetorical device.

And you are only showing that you did not read the rest. Clinton was talking about how torture is ineffective as a reply to what Trump and many proponents of torture are going for. And that was what the OP was referring to. What Trump and the proponents of torture are going for is bullshit.

Deal with it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/394 "2016-05-30T03:53:06Z")

</div>

I would like to challenge one assumption made by many people in this thread - specifically, the notion that torturers wouldn’t enact any sort of “quality control” and that they would have an “anything goes” approach towards what the victim says - that lying won’t face consequences and that saying that Osama bin Laden is located in Peru would be considered just as valid an answer as saying that he is located in a compound in Abbottabad.

I imagine it would go far more like this: The torturers would threaten something to the effect of, “If you think this pain is bad right now, we’ll make it 10 or 100 times worse if you tell us a lie.”

Yes, it is possible that the victim might give out spurious answers long after the truth has already been told. But it is extremely likely also that the truth lies within the first, or first few, responses. The first few responses are more likely to be truthful than the 97th or 99th responses.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/395 "2016-05-30T03:54:13Z")

</div>

Finally, I would like to note the bizarre double-standard logic used by some people in political debates about torture. They talk about how torture would be ineffective if applied to other people, but would be effective if applied to them.

Or, conversely, some talk about how torture would be effective against other people, but would be ineffective against them themselves. Somehow they always consider themselves to be exceptional.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/396 "2016-05-30T04:10:36Z")

</div>

BTW, when one looks at what Godwin refers to, the “law” is also about the dilution of the evil of Hitler when equated with lesser bad guys.

And that straw man is what Damuri Ajashi is attempting to do, trying to put words in our mouth like if the ones talking about how infective torture is are claiming that Trump is as evil as Hitler, once again: that was something that I did not claim, what you should realize is that Trump is indeed the reason for the OP and the current discussion, and Trump is “just” an ignorant and dangerous demagogue that is counting on the ignorance of many that do not know what the the majority of the experts are telling us about torture.

> **[As support for torture grows, so does consensus that it doesn't work](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2016/0401/As-support-for-torture-grows-so-does-consensus-that-it-doesn-t-work)**
>
> Terrorism concerns appear to be fueling a rising acceptance of torture in the US, a poll shows. But torture doesn't accomplish what Donald Trump claims it does, most experts say.

> [@](#):
>
> But while there is very little support for Mr. Trump’s assertion that “torture works” as an interrogation technique, torture really has a different purpose, experts say: social control.
> 
> “Indeed, for the many governments around the world that still routinely practice torture, it is seen as much as a tool for intimidation as information-gathering,” writes Colin Freeman in The Telegraph.
> 
> “As an interrogation tool, torture is a bust,” adds Naomi Klein in The Nation. “Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist – the individual prisoner’s will and the collective will.”
> 
> When asked why she and her colleagues tortured prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, US Army Reserve Spc. Lynndie England said: “As a way to control them,” Ms. Klein notes.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The idea that useful information can be extracted by torture has been debunked throughout history – from French torturers in the Renaissance to Japanese torturers during World War II, Mr. Freeman notes. Post-9/11 America has found the same thing, most experts agree.
> 
> “What we’ve learned over the last 15 years,” Mr. Gude says, is that “it would be a terrible mistake to rush back into these kinds of policies that have done so much damage to our efforts to fight terrorism around the world,” noting the hatred for America that it enflames.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/397 "2016-05-30T04:17:43Z")

</div>

> [@Velocity](#):
>
> I would like to challenge one assumption made by many people in this thread - specifically, the notion that torturers wouldn’t enact any sort of “quality control” and that they would have an “anything goes” approach towards what the victim says - that lying won’t face consequences and that saying that Osama bin Laden is located in Peru would be considered just as valid an answer as saying that he is located in a compound in Abbottabad.

At first glance that makes sense but this also something that has not been mentioned as taking place, lots of the information given to stop the torture coming from people that do not know eventually tell the torturers what they want to hear. In the most damaging recent case the ones that lied about a connection with Al-qeda and Saddam did not face consequences as they gave the Bush administration one of the reasons that they wanted to justify the invasion of Iraq.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/398 "2016-05-30T12:30:33Z")

</div>

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says “hello”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/399 "2016-05-30T12:42:59Z")

</div>

> [@GulfTiger](#):
>
> Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says “hello”.

A man of few words.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656/400 "2016-05-30T12:43:02Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> SERE training record a 100% information retrieval rate. So in situations liek they have in SERE training, its like a lottery where you have to pick a number from one to ten and you get ten guesses. The chances of winning a normal lottery might be one in a million. Are you seriously arguing that torture only produces valuable information one time out of a million or anything approaching that?

Suppose you set up a SERE training scenario where the torturer said they would stop when the subject confessed to killing JFK. Do you suppose with the 100% success rate that many of the subjects would not falsely confess?

If you gave each subject 4 names, 2 which were ‘real’ and 2 which were ‘false’, and the torturer said they would stop once they got 4 names, that they wouldn’t get all 4 names?

Or even if they said they would stop once they got 10 names, they wouldn’t get a bunch of made up names as well?

No one is claiming torture doesn’t get information…

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656.md?page=19)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-doesnt-work/750656.md?page=21)