In other words: you will not believe anything contrary to what you’ve already decided. Is that right?
The actual “no brainer” is that torture does not work. Bad information is worse than no information.
I can’t co-sign that definition, though these are course fuzzy and abstract terms. If torture produces more false leads and noise than useful information, as the evidence seems to suggest, then it doesn’t work, IMHO.
Substitute “dowsers”, or “bloodletters”, or “faith healers” for torturers - would you make the same conclusion? People saying that something works is meaningless, as people are subject to biases and cognitive flaws. Science is how we differentiate between what is true and what is not.
The Senate report on the CIA’s torture program concluded that:
CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”.
But, it feels like it should work, so people keep advocating for it, because we’re just mildly clever apes with poor critical thinking skills.
Or that their property would often default back to the king/prince/city/all of the above…
Like I said earlier, torture comes in two types: One is when the torturer doesn’t care what the truth is, they simply want you to say/admit to something so they can proceed with the next act. This type can be effective, because you can break a human being down to say almost anything–I don’t think there is any real debate about that.
The other type (and the one we are debating) is when the torturer needs certain facts or information. If they (like John Mace and in 24 example, KNOW a certain person has the information, AND it can be quickly and easily tested, then **possibly, POSSIBLY, **torture could potentially work.
But it often doesn’t work that way. You SUSPECT that one of several people know when the next car bombing is planned; you torture them all and under torture they all admit to knowing of the plot, but the information they provide is contradictory. Or they tell you names of people that you (the torturer) let drop, confirming your suspicions/bias. THIS is when torture becomes ineffective.
IMHO as always. YMMV.
On certain subjects, yes. I have limited faith in modern science. I wouldn’t be silly enough to write off the entire scientific community, but certain areas are little more than bunkum. It would take more than a single scientific cite on torture to convince me torture does not work. Perhaps if someone took a pair of pliers to my scrotum I may change my known opinion.
http://nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology
Dowsing and faith healing are entirely different. The have little known practical value. The beauty of torture is that it has a long “glorious” history of obtaining information, both of the truthful and untruthful variety. If humanity can do one thing well it is producing individuals & regimes effective in obtaining & holding power. One means of keeping this power is by torture. Torture has a proven history of success, faith healing does not. The Roman, Nazi and Bolshevik regimes did not keep hold of power through dowsing, but they did through torture. If we know anything of these regimes its that they were efficient at holding power.
As for the Senate report; this only proves politicians do not wish to use torture. I take it’s findings as politically motivated. The Chair of the committee was Dianne Feinstein. What does Dianne Feinstein(or any other Senator) know about torture that should lead me to give her opinion any value whatsoever?
I thought, as before, that we were talking about whether torture worked as a method of extracting reliable information, in the context of intelligence. If your claim is, instead, that torture “works” as a method of terrorizing captive populations, providing fodder for show trials…I won’t argue with you.
The report was compiled by interviews with CIA personnel, and examination of CIA documents. Do you think it was compiled by the Senators asking one another what their opinion on torture was?
If you won’t accept science, and you won’t accept the testimony and reports of people actually engaged in torture, then your mind appears firmly closed on this matter. Please don’t seek political office.
Not the point, the point was that unless you are a very fundamentalist religious fellow we all are aware nowadays that no one was really turning into horses or flying IOW, that was false information obtained by torture that was taken as fact for eons by the peons. 
They may had believed it themselves, but in the end it was just false information that changed society, and not for the better.
Here it has to be pointed out that for hundreds of years the result then for society was to set progress back by hundreds of years because there was “evidence” available that the authorities distributed to tell the people that their superstitions were “real”, and that also helped push too the idea about their rulers being appointed by god.
Another point was that it was thanks to the false information gathered that the powerful then justified their rule.
Likewise, many of the authoritarian people that nowadays want to torture do conveniently forget that the authorities have an interest in justifying their beliefs and the beliefs of the ones that think that the poor, minorities and immigrants do not need justice.
And so it is that we see people like Trump (who also never accepted the evidence that exonerated the Central Park Five) and Joe Arpaio (that endorsed Trump) demanding “enhanced interrogations” and the use of torture for their fiefdoms.
If a vending machine only returns a candy bar on average one time in 500, would you put money in it? Would you say that vending machine “works”? A stopped clock is right twice a day, but no one anywhere would say that clock “works”. Coming up with some rare hypothetical where it would work on you, personally (has this even ever happened? Is this something the CIA regularly does, torture people or their families for their safe combinations?) doesn’t actually illustrate that torture works.
What if your safe held the codes to the nuclear arsenal? What if you’re a cop and it’s the combination to the armory lock? Would you save your wife a few moments of agony when the the alternative is that thousands or millions of people (most likely including you and your wife) are killed?
Besides, if someone were waterboarding me, I doubt I’d be able to remember my name, let alone the combination to a safe I may or may not have memorized. Is it even my safe? How would the torturers know? Certainly, they could get me to say it was my safe under threat of torture. That doesn’t mean I can actually help them access it. And they’ll happily keep torturing me as I repeatedly give them wrong codes, because torture is for the torturer, and no one else.
Ok, we have given four or so cites which say it doesnt work. So, it’s now on you to give us a cite that sez it* does. *:dubious:
Since you victim has now forgotten the combination, quite some time.
Or in Mace’s cell phone- just ten attempts locks it forever.
Like John Mace I believe that torture can “work” in the sense that an interrogator can extract useful information through torture, if two conditions are met:
[ol]
[li]The interrogator knows with certainty that the torture subject is in possession of the information wanted.[/li][li]The interrogator has a way of quicky verifying whether an extracted information is correct.[/li][/ol]
It is probably quite rare in reality that those conditions are met, but it happens. A famous case occurred in Germany in the case of Magnus Gäfgen, who was suspected of kidnapping 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler and arrested in October 2002 by German police. Police surveillance had observed Gäfgen pick up a €1 million ransom demanded from the von Metzler family and proceed to go on a spending spree. After the ransom was paid, the boy was not released. Fearing for the boy’s safety Frankfurt’s deputy police chief, Wolfgang Daschner, had Gäfgen arrested and when he would not talk threatened to cause Gäfgen severe pain. Gäfgen told police where he had hidden von Metzler’s body. In this case torture was threatened, but not used, to extract information that, in other circumstances, could have saved a boy’s life.
I want to stress that even in a case like this I am firmly opposed to the use or threat of torture. Wolfgang Daschner was tried and convicted by a German court for threatening a suspect with torture (albeit the sentence was mild), and I think that was necessary. But to flatly claim that torture can never work is factually incorrect and only gives torture proponents an opening to say “you’re wrong”.
I don’t have much to contribute other than that genuine FBI interrogators were as appalled as everyone else when they learned that the USA was engaging in torture. They know it was ineffective and counterproductive. Former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, the guy who actually got info from Khalid Sheik Muhammad talks about it this YouTube channel video “How To Make A Terrorist Cry” How To Make A Terrorist Cry - YouTube The pros hated what they called “that Alpha male bullshit.” Remember that they managed to take down the Mafia, an international criminal organization that killed bystanders, innocents and their own with no compunction, and didn’t torture anyone. The whole torture “debate” reminds me of what Menchan said “For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.”
We shouldn’t torture because it is inhumane and easily abused. To claim it doesn’t work is just a way of avoiding the difficult decision to NOT do something even if it might get us what we want. In the event that there is a “ticking time bomb”, and some Jack Bauer comes along and saves the day with “unorthodox methods”, he can seek to be exonerated afterwards. If he ends up saving “tens of thousands of lives”, he may very well be.
But you see- it* didn’t* work.* The victim was already dead.* All they got was the location of the body, which likely would have been given up anyway.
and of course, no torture actually occurred. Only threats.
You’re right. But had the boy still lived at the time - which for all the police knew was a strong possibility - the information extracted from Gäfgen might have helped save him. I just wanted to illustrate that it *can *happen. I think I was clear on the fact that I do not advertise torture.
Personally I believe that the credible threat of torture is a form of torture in itself and should never ever be used by the police.
*Could. * But didn’t.
So that’s not a illustration that it can happen. It’s an illustration that it* can’t *happen.
Well - if you want to be nitpicky about it: It illustrates that the police could and did get the information they wanted - the boy’s location - through the threat of torture. In the case at hand that information turned out to be less valuable than they had hoped, but they *did *get it.
However, murderers usually give the location of the body later, so nothing was actually gained by the threat.
And so, by that measure, torture works. It accomplishes the torturer’s aims.
Again, that is not what we’re talking about. Nor are we talking about the sexual thrill torturers get from their work- even tho by THAT measure, torture certainly works.
We are talking about** getting significant Intelligence information- that can not be gained by less stressful methods. **
By this measure- the OP here-* torture does not work. *