Torture doesn't work

[GIGObuster]

@XT

Can you demonstrate any evidence that astrology ever actually gets tangible results?

Not **Kimstu **but I have to say that IMHO it works just like the lottery, the ones that praise it ***may ***had won in the past but it is really foolish to buy their books about how others can win too now.

@XT

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.

Well, in a previous discussion there was a cite from the Standford Philosophy dictionary that pointed to 2 examples that were told were valid, problem was that looking carefully one showed a big possibility that they got the wrong man and the tale was hearsay, and in the other the kid that they wanted to rescue from the kidnapper was most likely dead already.

Regardless, I do think that once in a blue moon the torturers get lucky.

@XT

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).

Actually I know enough history to report that that is not the exception, any government past and current can fall for the forbidden fruit of information gained with torture, it usually happens when a very reprehensible path needs to be followed, and so we got the Bush the lesser administration condoning torture and it got us false evidence to justify the Iraq invasion. You see, torture is not much useful for information, in reality it is useful to reprehensible leaders so as to gain information (no matter if it is false) that justifies an evil path, but not only to the power elites, but also to show the people that there are “valid” reasons to follow an evil path.

@XT

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.

As I pointed in a recent thread about torture loving Trump: followers like Joe Arpaio do want it so it will be easier to put away their enemies.

@XT

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.

With lots of past and recent examples that history offer us I can say that no, we should not condone its use because it usually gives us false evidence that is used to justify even more abuses of power.

BBC NEWS | Africa | Libya 'tortured' Bulgarian medics

'Both Sides' Are Wrong: Torture Did Work -- to Produce Lies for War (See...

[XT]

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
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”.
[/QUOTE]

Just off the top of my head I know of several spy rings that were broken by the Nazi Germans in France during WWII using torture. And, of course, the threat of and use of torture to cow a nation and it’s people can be demonstrated quite well using North Korea or the Stalinist USSR as examples.

Again, I think the real argument is whether we SHOULD use torture, or perhaps whether it’s the most effective tool or whether other tools are not only more acceptable but also work better/are more effective. Trying to claim that it categorically doesn’t work basically gets you into this sort of wrangle. I’m playing devils advocate here, since I don’t think we SHOULD use torture and I am unconvinced it’s the most effective method for extracting information.

But there’s no reason I should take your personal belief preferences as evidence.

Well, I’m not the one claiming categorically that something doesn’t work. If I were you’d be perfectly correct to ask me to cite my proofs for it. Exceptional claims require exceptional proofs and all that. And it’s an extraordinary claim that every society and every culture through history has perpetuated the myth that torture works when it categorically never did, and that this myth continues to be perpetuated even into modern societies and modern day nation states.

I agree, with the caveat that I think the burden of proof ought to be on the other side.

I disagree that the burden of proof is with me on this. It would only be the case if I were condoning the use of torture and saying that we should be using this method…THEN the burden would be on me to prove that A) it works, and more importantly B) it’s the best method and demonstrably better than any other method so we should consider it even though it’s repellent. I’m not saying any of those things, nor, afaict, is anyone else in this thread. Just taking exception and asking for proof of the claim that ‘Torture doesn’t work’ categorically, which is what the OP was asserting. As I’ve said, I think that’s not only a silly argument but it’s the wrong thing to argue…IMHO of course.

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.

True. I think those who advocate torture SHOULD be required to prove that torture not only works but that it is or can be either broadly or in specific circumstances the best method for achieving whatever goal is trying to be achieved. With you all the way on this one.

[DrDeth]

@XT

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.

Like Organized Religion hasn’t been doing the same? :dubious:

[GIGObuster]

@XT

Again, I think the real argument is whether we SHOULD use torture, or perhaps whether it’s the most effective tool or whether other tools are not only more acceptable but also work better/are more effective. Trying to claim that it categorically doesn’t work basically gets you into this sort of wrangle. I’m playing devils advocate here, since I don’t think we SHOULD use torture and I am unconvinced it’s the most effective method for extracting information.

And again, the answer to the argument if we should use it is NO.

[Human_Action]

@John_Mace

Where in the OP is he talking about those things (emphasis added).

All of it? Here it is again. The initial reference is to the show 24, where the lead character uses torture to extract intelligence. The quoted article is about Clinton saying torture doesn’t work “when it comes to fighting terrorism”, and goes to say that “when it comes to the real goal of getting useful intelligence” that torture isn’t more effective than other methods, and so forth. The context is clearly intelligence gathering for the purpose of combating terrorism.

@DrDeth

Despite shows like 24, torture just doesn’t work.

PolitiFact | Evidence backs Hillary Clinton claim that torture is counterproductive for counterterrorism

*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.*

@John_Mace

Look, if you want to claim that torture doesn’t work in the vast majority of the times when intelligence operatives are collecting information, that’s fine. But “torture doesn’t work” is false.

The former is what I understood the OP to be saying. If there’s an honest disagreement about that, we can proceed from there.

[DrDeth]

@XT

J
Again, I think the real argument is whether we SHOULD use torture, or perhaps whether it’s the most effective tool or whether other tools are not only more acceptable but also work better/are more effective. Trying to claim that it categorically doesn’t work basically gets you into this sort of wrangle. I’m playing devils advocate here, since I don’t think we SHOULD use torture and I am unconvinced it’s the most effective method for extracting information.
.

No, since once it is decided that Torture works, then the next question is- *when is OK to use it?
*

Since we know it does not yield useful intelligence, there’s no need to go on to the moral issues.

[Human_Action]

@XT

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.

What’s the difference between saying that it’s ineffective, relative to other methods, and saying that it “doesn’t work”? When I say it doesn’t work, that’s what I mean: it produces worse results than the alternatives.

[Human_Action]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

In this it is no better or worse than information obtained by non torturing means.

No, it’s worse. Torture can make it impossible to extract information by other means, by changing the memories of the victim.

From my first cite:

These neurochemical effects set the stage for two serious pitfalls of interrogation under torture, argues O’Mara. The first is that “information presented by the captor to elicit responses during interrogation may inadvertently become part of the suspect’s memory, especially since suspects are under extreme stress and are required to tell and retell the same events which may have happened over a period of years.” As a result, information produced by the suspect may parrot or embellish suggestions from the interrogators rather than revealing something both truthful and unknown to the interrogators. Second, cortisol-induced damage to the prefrontal cortex can cause confabulation, or false memories. Because a person being tortured loses the ability to distinguish between true and false memories, as a 2008 study showed, further pain and stress does not cause him to tell the truth, but to retreat further into a fog where he cannot tell true from false.

In other words, once you torture someone, you’ve ruined them as a source.

[Siam_Sam]

I believe for good or ill, torture does work for the most part. It’s become fashionable in recent years to claim it doesn’t, but it’s been a tried and true method over the ages. Positive results far outweigh the “lying under torture” meme. (I suspect they don’t lie the second time after their lies became apparent.)

No, for me it’s strictly a moral issue. It’s simply not right, although I could condone it in certain “ticking time bomb” scenarios.

[John_Mace]

@Human_Action

All of it? Here it is again. The initial reference is to the show 24, where the lead character uses torture to extract intelligence. The quoted article is about Clinton saying torture doesn’t work “when it comes to fighting terrorism”, and goes to say that “when it comes to the real goal of getting useful intelligence” that torture isn’t more effective than other methods, and so forth. The context is clearly intelligence gathering for the purpose of combating terrorism.

The former is what I understood the OP to be saying. If there’s an honest disagreement about that, we can proceed from there.

No. You are talking about developing sources, and how once you torture someone they are ruined. So what? If it can work in a one-off situation, then it can work. Exactly like in 24, as long as there is a way to quickly verify if the information is correct. If you have the phone right next to you that you need the password for, the guy being tortured isn’t going to gain much relief by giving you the wrong password, as he might if you are trying to find out when the next attack will be and it’s 5 days off.

[DrDeth]

@John_Mace

No. You are talking about developing sources, and how once you torture someone they are ruined. So what? If it can work in a one-off situation, then it can work. Exactly like in 24, as long as there is a way to quickly verify if the information is correct. If you have the phone right next to you that you need the password for, the guy being tortured isn’t going to gain much relief by giving you the wrong password, as he might if you are trying to find out when the next attack will be and it’s 5 days off.

Again, a lifeboat case, and so far, no significant intelligence has been gained which could not have been gained other-wise.

Do you have a cite where it has brought in significant intelligent- which coudl not have been gained otherwise?

You make up imaginary scenarios, which have not even occurred- and this is to be set against thousands of years and millions of victims- many of whom were innocent or knew nothing.

[Human_Action]

@John_Mace

No. You are talking about developing sources, and how once you torture someone they are ruined. So what? If it can work in a one-off situation, then it can work. Exactly like in 24, as long as there is a way to quickly verify if the information is correct. If you have the phone right next to you that you need the password for, the guy being tortured isn’t going to gain much relief by giving you the wrong password, as he might if you are trying to find out when the next attack will be and it’s 5 days off.

See the previous two times where I contrasted compliance with intelligence gathering. I don’t know what you think I’ve written that you’re disagreeing with.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Siam_Sam

I believe for good or ill, torture does work for the most part. It’s become fashionable in recent years to claim it doesn’t, but it’s been a tried and true method over the ages. Positive results far outweigh the “lying under torture” meme. (I suspect they don’t lie the second time after their lies became apparent.)

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

[Siam_Sam]

Centuries of results.

[Trinopus]

@John_Mace

If someone was torturing your spouse in order to get the combination to your safe, you wouldn’t give it to them? . . .

No…because I know, the moment I do, they’ll kill us both.

I’ll delay, as best I can. I’ll collapse into an emotional ball of catatonic woe – wouldn’t even have to fake it. I’ll babble and bawl like an infant. But I won’t give the combination, because that’s certain death.

(I don’t have a wife, but if I ever do, she’ll know and understand, and wouldn’t give up the combination to spare me from torture, either.)

You cannot deal rationally with monsters.

(And if you do cooperate…you only make it more likely that they’ll repeat the process on other victims. The place to resist terrorism is here and now. Don’t pay ransom; don’t reward highjackers.)

[Siam_Sam]

People like to talk big and say how they’d simply resist torture. Not me. I’d fold like a house of cards, and I know it.

[Human_Action]

@Siam_Sam

Centuries of results.

Just like dowsing, astrology, trepanning…if humans have been doing it for a while, it’s gotta be effective, right?

[Lobohan]

@Siam_Sam

People like to talk big and say how they’d simply resist torture. Not me. I’d fold like a house of cards, and I know it.

I think the trouble is, that you have to contrive a scenario that isn’t likely to have torture be sure to work.

“Give me the combo to your safe, or I kill your son.”

“Give me your pin number or I’ll cut off your finger.”

That’s not what intelligence services are largely doing. They are asking things like, “Tell us what you know about Bin Laden’s driver.”

Surely you can see the difference there, right?

[GIGObuster]

@Siam_Sam

I believe for good or ill, torture does work for the most part. It’s become fashionable in recent years to claim it doesn’t, but it’s been a tried and true method over the ages.

Simple question: Were all those witches that confessed under torture then were real witches? What they confessed then was the truth?

Persecuting Witches and Witchcraft

church records tell the story of Maria of Ituren admitting under torture that she and sister witches turned themselves into horses and galloped through the sky. In a district of France, 600 women admitted to copulating with demons.

I mean, if witches then told the truth and could fly then the inquisitors really screwed up humanity’s progress in alternative flying systems! [/sarcasm]

[Trinopus]

Faith Healing works.

Every once in a rare while, someone who is prayed over (only) happens to get better from his disease.

No one is allowed to claim, “Faith Healing doesn’t work,” because, about as often as torture works, Faith Healing works too.

Silly position to take in a debate.