Torture doesn't work

I wonder if you even knew SERE training existed before you encountered them in the torture debate.

I have said all along that there are plenty of people who have opinions that align with yours.

I said no one who has read this thread and is capable of being swayed on the matter has been swayed by your conglomeration of opinions and anecdotes. My conglomerations of opinions and anecdotes are in fact more instructive in the debate of whether “torture simply doesn’t work” because I never said that torture always works, only that it works (and not in the broken clock/lottery sense)

Moving the goal posts, your point was that there were no good arguments, I only had to show that they were. I have seen many historians changing their mind nowadays thanks to the work of historians that just happened to know Japanese. English and Russian.

Again: your declaration is what needs a lot of conditionals. Just like explaining why a cancer cure does not work in the field.

By contrast the declaration that “torture doesn’t work” is much closer to reality. And supported by many experts. And even the people that were involved in SERE.

Everyone can look back and see that your declarations were that my honesty was shot, the accusation of lying was noted.

Based on what the SERE trainer told us you are consulting cuckoo watchmakers when we are dealing with digital watch makers.

Stop for a second.

Can you tell me the difference between this exercise, and a real-life interrogation?

What are some of the differences? Can you list them? I mean, I could do it for you, but maybe if you did it yourself you might learn something you already know.

Let’s start with finding five things that are different between the waterboarding soldiers are subjected to as part of SERE training, and a military interrogation.

Can you do it?

Wait. WHAT!!?!?!?!

My point was that “there are no good arguments”???

cite or retract. YOU are the only one that mentioned there being good arguments for or against the efficacy of nuclear bombs. Not only are you putting words in my mouth, you are putting YOUR words in my mouth.

I introduced nukes into the discussions when you implied that I supported the use of torture. Then I said that I no more support the use of torture than the use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons despite my belief that they are effective. You respond by pointing to SOME historians that don’t think the nuclear bomb was important in ending wwii. And I’M moving the goal posts? Are you fucking serious?

Still a hell of a lot more convincing than some game theory based on silly assumptions.

And yet the only real life evidence we have all points to the fact that torture does in fact work in some cases. And it works 100% of the time in SERE training (and that guy that was involved with SERE training doesn’t even come close to saying what you claim he is saying, it says something about your argument when you have to distort your cites like that).

Really? I don’t recall a moderator noting it. Are you sure you’re not just butthurt because you have so thoroughly undermined your own credibility (and continue to do so)?

That cite doesn’t say what you think it says and I suspect a closer reading on your part will make you stop using it as a cite.

OK

Sure, A SERE trainee is a volunteer.
They are never actually in danger of being killed.
They always have information the interrogator wants.
The interrogator can confirm the information almost immediately.

None of the differences between SERE training and a real life interrogation leads me to believe that torture doesn’t work. In fact it only reinforces the fact that torture can be effective.

Yeah so one more thing to round it out. The SERE trainees we are talking about are fucking navy SEALS (a lot of other people take SERE training as well, they don’t do better than the Navy SEALS) and the typical Guantanamo Bay detainee is not. Being a Navy Seal is at least as much about mental toughness as it is about physical toughness and yet those pussies can only hold out a couple of minutes before they spill their guts.

Now, let me ask you a question.

Is there anything that would convince you that torture actually works? We have several historical examples, we have the SERE example and all of that just melt away because human rights expert writes a book saying “nuh uh”

Your statement was that you are not supporting torture, but as usual this betrays the reasoning why you continue with no good support.

Sorry, but you have not demonstrated that anyone is supporting you in your point that game theory is not a serous way to investigate this issue. Nor you have shown that the evidence found did not confirm that a lot of what theory told us was going to happen.

Again, the trainers knew before hand what information they are looking for, you continue to ignore that that does not work in real life as the SERE expert reported.

Again you can indeed tell all that scientists found a cure for cancer in the lab, sure it works there, but it did not work in the field.

I would like to address a talking point that keeps popping up again and again in this thread, which is this notion that “The subject will tell the interrogator what the interrogator *wants *to hear.”
This doesn’t make sense. Here’s why:
Assuming that the interrogator wants actual, useful, information (and so I am excluding interrogators who simply want a forced confession,) there is no answer the interrogator particularly *wants *to hear. The interrogator wants the truth.
Suppose for instance that an interrogator knows that Abu Bakhr al-Baghdadi (the leader of ISIS)'s whereabouts has been narrowed down to two locations: either Mosul or Raqqa. In that case, the interrogator, when questioning a subject with knowledge of the terrorist leader’s whereabouts, demanding, “Is al-Baghdadi in Mosul or Raqqa?” has no innate *preference *towards a particular answer. The interrogator wants to know which answer is true. The interrogator does not *prefer *to hear “Mosul” over “Raqqa.” A preference would be pointless; what’s important is what’s true and accurate.
If that’s not convincing, let’s try a more mundane example. Suppose that you are traveling to Disneyland and you are at a fork in the road. You have to turn right or turn left. Now you know that only one of these paths is the path that will take you to Disneyland. So you ask someone for directions. You do not have a *preference *for “right” over “left.” You do not *want *to hear the person say “left” any more than you *want *to hear him say “right.” All you care about is, which is the *correct *path? A *want *or *preference *would be meaningless and, frankly, ridiculous.

That’s enough. Next bit that sounds even vaguely insulting from anyone, to anyone, will earn a warning. Multiple ones if you keep it up.

Well, there you go again claiming that I distort cites, what did I distort from what the colonel that worked with SERE said?

The colonel also was interviewed by Rachel Maddow and he did affirm again what me and many others are saying.

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2009-04-22

Then you have little to no understanding of what game theory is.

The SERE expert said no such thing. Unless you are interpreting my claim that torture works to mean “torture ALWAYS works” your article does not support your claim. Those pussy navy SEALS keep giving it up like a cheap whore within a few minutes of waterboarding. Those pussy ass pussies.

Wait, you’re saying that because the fact that an alcohol solution can kill cancer cells in a petri dish means that any facts that comes from a controlled experiment have no meaning? You might as well just say fuck science. Your attempts to rehabilitate the reputation of those pussy Navy SEALS that couldn’t even put up with even a few minutes of torture before giving up information are monumental failures.

Just to be clear, this is a different cite. This cite says:

"to think that one can use physicality or heavy stress to obtain useful, reliable information is just a misnomer. It‘s not backed up by operational experience, and it is not backed up by one shred of scientific evidence. "

And on the other hand we have folks who have actually used torture to elicit information say that it works. I guess we should just go with Rachel Maddow’s guest on this one. :rolleyes:

Like I said many many times, your reliance on opinion and anecdote is feeble in the face of factual evidence that torture can indeed work.

Wait, does this include insulting those pussy ass Navy SEALS?

meh
The interrogator wants evidence that will support his own theories as buttressed by confirmation bias. In a theoretical way, he or she probably does want “truth,” but since the torture is going to continue until an answer matches the theory that the interrogator holds, it will continue until either the victim gives an answer that the interrogator likes or until the victim can no longer continue.

If the victim happens to give up information that the interrogator likes, (whether it be accurate or not), then the torture stops (for that time). If the information happens to be true, the interrogator concludes (and declares) that “torture works,” and if it turns out to be false, it is either ignored or the victim is declared to have been a tougher nut to crack than expected, (possibly triggering more torture).

Certainly there are people who have given up correct information under torture. Given the number of victims who have given up false information, however, it remains a crap shoot whether any information obtained under torture is legitimate and that unknown and unpredictable level of false information indicates that it is false to claim that torture works.

A significant buttress to the idiotic decision to wage war against Iraq was “information” obtained under torture–even though the victim, in a different setting without torture, had already stated that Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC/Pentagon attack.

We already know that “on the other hand” the one that you pointed out as supporting your point came later declaring that “Torture does not work”; again, he saw the evidence.

It is a different cite alright, but it is the same colonel. Demonstrating that I did not distort what he said, as usual context is the key and it is clear that you were wrong in your attempt at impugning what I noted that expert was saying all along. Indeed, there is no shred of scientific evidence that you are correct because SERE is not useful to gain intelligence in real life.

And as mentioned you are wrong for relying on SERE as a panacea for your argument, it is indeed like an argument that thermite explains everything in 9/11. In SERE training the point is that torture is effective to gain false confessions or a tool to gain useful propaganda to support reprehensible acts by a government. Not useful to gain reliable information.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy/interviews/malcolm_nance.html

-Malcolm Nance is a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school, who has himself been waterboarded as part of the training. A long-time intelligence specialist who speaks five languages, including Arabic, Nance has been deployed on counterterrorism operations in the Balkans, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Now retired from the Navy, Nance is the author of the 2007 book, The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency, and is a counterterrorism consultant based in Washington, D.C. He is also a contributor to the online site, Small Wars Journal.

Are you under the impression that torture produces information less frequently than other forms of interrogation?

Sure, torture can be abused. And reports of tubes bought in Africa can be misinterpreted.

Torture produces incorrect or invalid information more frequently than other means of interrogation.

Pointing to the ways in which hand-picked public relations flacks with no intelligence training “misinterpreted” the presence of tubes that were the wrong size, made of the wrong materials to be used for uranium enrichment is not really doing anything to bolster your case.

The issue is not that torture “can be” abused, it is that its use is abuse and it produces far too many false reports to make it worthwhile as a source of information.

And other do not. You cannot rely on anecdote to say that torture doesn’t work any more than I can rely on anecdote to support the notion that all other forms of torture do not work unless I am arguing that torture ALWAYS works.

Your original cite didn’t say what you said he said. perhaps you had linked to the wrong cite but your original cite did not support your argument.

In what way is torture (properly applied) less reliable than other methods of interrogation? Does asking nicely work more reliably? YOU seem to be arguing against the notion that torture ALWAYS works, you are actually supposed to be supporting the argument that torture never works. Its a lot easier to argue against the first than to support the latter.

Noone is arguing that torture cannot produce false information. Any form of interrogation can produce false information. Unlike asking nicely, torture almost always produces something and that something might not be reliable but asking nicely won’t always get you better information faster.

IOW, who gives a shit about opinions and anecdotes. For every opinion or anecdote you offer I can offer one from someone that says torture can be effectively used. You cannot establish that torture doesn’t work with a few anecdotes and opinions. I can establish that torture works at least sometimes with anecdotal information. And in the case of SERE training, it worked ~100% of the time.

I agree with that. If you are torturing someone who doesn’t know anything, they will make shit up to stop the torture. That doesn’t mean that torture produces less information than other methods of interrogation.

Of course it does. GIGO is pointing to the false confessions extracted under torture as an example of how torture has harmed our interests. I don’t think that anyone that wasn’t already determined to find that connection would have relied on that extracted information to go to war. Torture isn’t why we invaded Iraq.

That is an opinion and you are entitled to it but there is a history of torture being used effectively. Whether it is the French in Algeria or Navy SERE training. Perhaps we are not doing it right but that’s not because torture doesn’t work, its because we suck at it.