OK then.
Resolved:
TORTURE WORKS (at least sometimes), but there is disagreement on whether or not its worth it.
Wait. So is your contention that torture only works accidentally or by coincidence? Its not just unreliable it only works by accident?
No? Then your analogy is stupid and you should stop using it.
Yes, indeed. The few times it has worked, it has done so more or less by accident.
What did you win? Oh yeah, losing lottery tickets and a broken clock were you can see how great proponents of torture are for noticing how it works twice a day.
BTW the one you quoted to show how torture did work once to defeat the LA “plot” even mentioned how his piece that you quoted was undermined by the timeline by 2009, so what is James Joyner telling us now after he did also check the torture report?
http://jamesjoyner.com/2014/12/torture-doesnt-work-the-cia-torture-reports-long-shadow/
In what way is information gained through torture any more accidental than information gained through other forms of interrogation?
And if what it takes to get relief is the names of co-conspirators or other useful information then I guess that’s what they give up (if they have it to give).
Yayy. I win again.
“Almost all of the useful intelligence merely corroborated what was already known from legitimate interrogations and much of the intelligence that was gathered was simply wrong.”
IOW some of the useful intelligence gathered through torture was NOT already known and frankly corroboration of previously gathered intelligence is in and of itself useful.
Frankly much of the intelligence gathered through ANY form of interrogation is going to be simply wrong. You think that terrorists don’t lie unless they are under torture?
The wins just keep on coming.
Just for the record, I am against torture but I am also against bullshit so we are having a debate about whether or not torture works.
**The record so far shows that even the one that you called for support is telling us that what me and many others told you about torture was not bullshit. And you are only just now stumbling on what we also did say, that it may get you some information is not a good reason to deny that it is counterproductive overall.
**
The evidence shows that you are the one still wishful thinking that you made any sense, the evidence convinced many, even James Joyner whom you pointed as a supporter of your point of view, is telling us now that Torture Doesn’t Work, it is not my problem but yours now if you want to continue to demonstrate to others that you do not mind to appear as just spouting nonsense just to **nitpick **the reasons why torture should not to be used.
Your failure is only one of degree anyhow, but a failure nevertheless that can be used by future governments to justify torture as there will be people that will insist that the 2 times the clock works is justification enough to support the ones in power.
This is what is known as an ad hominem attack which is what you resort to when you have no facts and/or no counterpoint at your disposal.
Not really.
I think it depends on your definition of “works”.
If “torture works” means “some of the information elicited by torture turns out to be factual” then, yes, torture works. But only in the rather limited sense that, say, picking stocks by using a blindfold and a dart works. In both cases, some of the information you elicit turns out to be good, but relatively little of it. Plus, you have no reliable way of identifying which items of information are good, and you have no reason at all to think that the method itself contributes to the reliability or validity of the information it elicits. In fact, you have every reason to think that it doesn’t.
If “torture works” means “the use of torture improves the quality of your intelligence to a degree which offsets the damage you do to your cause by the use of torture” then, no, torture doesn’t work.
He’s a perfect example of when “torture works”.
Gul Rahman.http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=19276099
*Over the next two weeks, the elderly Afghan farmer was forced to stay awake, subjected to total darkness and loud noises, was badly beaten and was dragged naked and hooded over dirt floors.
On Nov. 20, 2002, guards found him dead from hypothermia, dehydration, immobility and lack of food. The CIA would later determine that Rahman’s detention was a case of mistaken identity.*
Yes, you can torture a man, even unto death- but if it’s the wrong guy- he can’t tell you anything.
Per wiki: Steven W Hawkins, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, writing in the The Guardian, reported that he found that the CIA official responsible for Rahman’s death, was not only not punished, or sanctioned, rather, he received a cash bonus for his “consistently superior work”.[6]
The issue in this case is mistaken identity, though. With mistaken identity, no interrogation method will work - torture or no torture, ethical or unethical, violent or nonviolent.
Exactly. Which is the problem when you try that one in a million lifeboat case of instantly verifiable info.
What’s the combo for the safe?
I dont know.
(torture ensues)
What’s the combo for the safe?
I dont know.
(more torture ensues)
What’s the combo for the safe?
36-24-36!
That’s wrong- asshole.
(torture ensues)
What’s the combo for the safe?
I dont know.
(torture ensues)
What’s the combo for the safe?
55-24-10!
Wrong again!
(torture ensues)
So, pro-torture posters- at what time do you assume he really doesnt know and let him go?
If the answer is anytime before death- then the guy just has to hang on until then if he really knows.
If the answer is “we keep going until he dies…”
I thought I made it clear I was generally anti-torture. I just believe it works. Just because I believe it works does not mean I endorse it, and you should not paint it that way. The question is does it work, not are there alternatives.
Other methods may work too, but that’s neither here nor there. Torture also works, just it should not be used outside a ticking-time bomb situation.
The point has been made many times: (and even by the people that were pointed by supporters of torture in the past) torture does not work when one looks at the overall picture. The few times it can (and one has to point still at the doubtful nature of the cases mentioned in favor of it) are really in the terrain of lottery winners and broken clocks.
And I still think it works. But just because I think it works does not mean I support it. Suggesting such is disingenuous at best.
Uh, there is a fraction of that that is granted already, the problem coming from you is that I see that there is a lot of implied effectiveness to torture that is not valid when one looks at the evidence.
You are applying a lot of similar arguments that anti vaccine proponents use. They can point at cases where vaccines are damaging, so ergo “vaccines are not good to use and only natural remedies, or to let nature take its course” should be what we all should get as a lesson.
That there are cases were leaving nature to operate does “work” (like in the few cases were kids can be allergic to a vaccine) that does not prevent the CDC and all health organizations to declare that vaccines do work, and they also tell us that just thinking that nature works against diseases that can be taken care with vaccines is reckless, period.
And so it is with torture, if you are telling us that your “it works” is in the same level as the anti vaccine people that propose that “only natural remedies do work” then there is no problem IMHO.
I guess its a matter of framing the debate. We have seen claim that torture doesn’t work. That it is the equivalent of a lottery ticket or broken clock. Something that only works by happenstance. I am saying that this is bullshit. The fact that torture doesn’t work in every situation is no more meaningful than the fact that a mitre saw is not useful for screwing in a toggle bolt. But pretending that torture is about as effective as trying to hammer in nails by throwing rocks at them blindfolded just undermines credibility.
If you agree that torture can be used to effectively extract information in some cases but we shouldn’t use it because there are knock on effects that make their use counterproductive or even that the moral issues overshadow any marginal increase in intelligence we might get from the use of torture, then that is a different debate in my mind.
An ad hominem attack of this sort is perfectly acceptable when attacking an OPINION PEICE.
It is no more relevant than Jenny McCarthy’s opinion on vaccines.
And how is the reliability of information gathered from terrorist prisoners any more reliable when torture ISN’T used? Is there a reliable way of identifying which items of information gathered WITHTOUT torture are good?
So, can you say “torture simply doesn’t work” when you have so many additional qualifiers and conditions? Or do you have to say that torture is usually counterproductive and leave yourself open to the argument that sometimes it is not?
That is very different from saying “torture simply doesn’t work”