Do you think that if you tell them nothing, the torture won’t continue?
By that logic you can’t say, “homeopathic medicine doesn’t work” because it can cure dehydration.
I think it’s reasonable to assume in this sort of discussion that he’s talking about intelligence gathering of the sort our intelligence agencies do, rather than, “give me the safe combo or I’ll sodomize you with a broken bottle.”
That said, of course it works sometimes. People are people, and they’ll react differently. The question should be, does it work better than more rational methods.
But you are betting it. They might murder the two of you as soon as they were done. You’re betting that if you give up the information, they’ll leave the two of you alone. Like you say - you’re counting on them not being sadists, and wagering the two of your lives that your evaluation of them is correct.
It’s entirely possible. After all, at that point, it hasn’t worked. And as I said, in the case that we’re going to die once our usefulness to them has been outlived, saying nothing, or telling a lie, prolongs the possibility of escape or rescue.
The problem is that it does work just well enough that it’s been used for thousands of years. What I think you mean is that it doesn’t work as well as other methods, and that it doesn’t work well enough to justify it’s use. Personally, I think you should disconnect whether it works or not with whether it should be used. IOW, whether it works or doesn’t work, we (presumably the US, but probably the entire western world) shouldn’t use it regardless, as there are alternatives that can work as well or better and aren’t as repugnant or distasteful.
No, it’s a lie. It’s trivial to disprove. During the Inquisition, the Church tortured people into confessing all the time. Torquemada and the like accomplished their goal; they just didn’t learn things that were true.
The problem with torture as an intelligence gathering tool is that it wastes time and effort. Whatever the victim tells you has to be verified by other means, and what the victim tells you is as likely to be false as true. You have to top the torture to let the victims talk and while you are investigating their claims.
Now, if you have multiple possible victims whom you are interrogating on the same subject, torture may have greater utility. Ask four victims the same questions. force them to answer through pain, and compare the resultant data. If they’re just making up shit, their answers won’t match; if the anwers do match, you have someplace to start. But you’re also validating the victims’ view of you as the villain of the piece, and you may strengthen the resolve of some of them. Absent a scenario like “I need you to defuse this bomb,” torture is not the right tool, and even then there’s problems.
I find it hard to believe we are having this debate. Of course torture can work. It’s been proven to work well enough historically. Suddenly, with the advent of tolerant, open society our whole knowledge of humanity’s pain endurance goes out the window. Torture worked well enough on Guy Fawkes to show that in skilled hands it works. The query I have is it’s morality not it’s effectiveness in skilled hands. And yes, im sure even in skilled hands it’s far from perfect in obtaining information.
Some people in society like to believe that if something is morally wrong, it must therefore be ineffective as well. Unfortunately, those two things are unrelated.
But the torturer is stupid. By definition, the only people stupid enough to use torture are the people stupid enough to use torture.
The day Obama came into office, he should have started proceedings to get the CIA’s rapists and torturers executed as war criminals. Instead he threw John Kiriakou in prison for trying to stop it, and his Attorney-General explicitly stated that the Department of Justice would protect them from justice.
This is tautology and circular reasoning.
(Plus the premise that the folks at the SSD, Mukhabarat, Stasi, Kempeitai, SS, KGB, MSS, SAVAK, etc. are or were all of low intelligence.)
No, it’s just that the torturers enjoy it, so they have been justifying it’s use.
And they have been able to keep this conspiracy up for thousands of years, down to today in places like China and North Korea where it’s used literally every day? And it never worked at all, in all this time, but the torturers (perhaps a secret society of torturers, or maybe a guild or something), who love torturing have been able to keep this secret so they can continue to simply enjoy the fun of torturing people??
Well…ok.
Dictatorships like North Korea do not torture people because it is an effective method of intelligence gathering, they torture as a form of terrorism. They take John Smith off the street, torture him until they succeed in fabricating evidence that he’s an enemy of the state, then hold up the torture as an example of what happens to enemies of the state. Whether he’s actually an enemy of the state or not is immaterial.
Worked for what?
Torture works for demonstrating your power over your captive. It works to demonstrate your resolve, your cruelty, your determination, whatever. If your goal is to instill fear (like in North Korea) or just general loathing to your cause, hardly anything beats torture.
As Skald pointed out, it’s also handy to get people to do specific things. “I’ll keep breaking fingers until you give me your wallet.”
But to extract information that the torturer does not know or cannot instantly verify - it’s worse than useless; it’s counter-productive.
:dubious: :dubious: By that rationale, one could argue that astrology works too.
Evaluating the efficacy of any human practice based on its longevity is not a reliable approach.
No conspiracy is required. People are very credulous and obstinate about continuing to practice behaviors that they think serve a useful purpose.
Moreover, indiscriminate sadism isn’t the only reason that torturers find torture attractive irrespective of its actual efficacy. Many otherwise non-cruel people feel satisfaction at seeing a known evil person, or someone they sincerely believe to be an evil person, suffer pain.
How are you defining whether it ‘works’ or not, in this case? You admit they are doing it, can you show how this method is not working for them or for the Chinese? Or is this some other definition of ‘torture’ you are using? And do you know that they North Koreans (or others) never get any usable intelligence out of these sessions? Are ALL of them just taking some guy off the street for no reason and torturing him to make him an example? Every one?
Again, what I think you guys REALLY mean is you don’t like torture (I doubt anyone replying in this thread does either), and think we shouldn’t use it, and think there are better, more effective means to the end of gaining intelligence. Saying flat out that it ‘doesn’t work’, then trying to cherry pick examples that become more and more, um, torturous to ‘prove’ that seems, to me at least, to be missing the actual point in discussing torture and whether WE, as a nation or society should condone it’s use.
I thought I was quite clear that it was some other definition of “works” that I was using.
If all you want to do is make an example out of people, torture works. If you actually want to learn something other than “the regime will do horrible things to you if they don’t like you,” torture doesn’t work.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
By that rationale, one could argue that astrology works too.
[/QUOTE]
Can you demonstrate any evidence that astrology ever actually gets tangible results?
True. But saying something doesn’t work, categorically, needs more proof than I’ve seen presented so far. I’ve seen exhaustive evidence that astrology doesn’t work…what I’ve seen wrt the torture debate is much less exhaustive, with seemingly many examples showing that it DOES work in some cases and for some definitions of ‘torture’, just that it’s perhaps not the most optimal method.
That’s true too. But I find it hard to believe that something that is supposedly SO un-useful would still be in such wide spread use, across cultures and time to the present day. After all, astrology hasn’t been taken as seriously across the same broad spectrum and to this very day by major, modern nation states (this last excludes North Korea, of course, but there always has to be an exception to any rule :p).
True, but doesn’t really prove that torture categorically doesn’t work. No doubt a lot of torture is done by sadist types who just love it…but even if you want to posit that this is a high percentage it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than that to ‘prove’ that ALL of it is about this, or that ALL of it is useless and that this has been perpetuated across cultures and across time to today. That’s an extraordinary claim and is going to require extraordinary proofs, and even one example where it doesn’t meet that bill and did produce tangible results is going to at least falsify the categorical statement.
Again, I think you guys are focusing on the wrong thing here. You don’t have to prove that torture never works…that’s a fools errand, IMHO, since there are examples where it did work and you get into parsing the question and nit-pickage galore. Instead, I think the real discussion is to show that alternatives can and do work as well, and that whether torture works or not whether we, as a society should condone it’s use regardless.
In this it is no better or worse than information obtained by non torturing means.
Sure. My horoscope said I was in danger of injury, and the very next day I broke my foot.
Yes, that’s hardly a scientific study, but there’s vast amounts of other anecdotal evidence out there that similarly bolsters people’s belief.
Is belief in the efficacy of torture based on anything better? I think it’s up to the advocates of the efficacy of torture to demonstrate that it is, rather than just saying “well it must work to some extent or so many people wouldn’t have done it throughout history”.
But there’s no reason I should take your personal belief preferences as evidence.
I agree, with the caveat that I think the burden of proof ought to be on the other side.
If we’re proposing to use such inhumane practices as torture, the people in favor of using them ought to be able to supply specific, conclusive evidence that these practices do work better than the alternatives. Not just keep on “grandfathering” it in as part of our historical traditions.