I’ve claimed it. To answer your question; yes, sometimes the best thing to do is something bad if there is a greater good. That could include torture… if it worked.
So there you go; question not avoided, still claiming it doesn’t work. You’re wrong. Perhaps you’d like to rephrase so as to not damn your entire opposition’s opinions to namby-pamby-ness.
This is moving the goalposts.
First it was, “Torture (or the threat of torture) doesn’t get accurate information.”
Now, it’s “Torture (or the threat of torture) did get accurate information, but that accurate information didn’t help.”
True - the threat provided accurate and verifiable information and provided it quickly, but it still did not save the boy’s life, because the boy had been dead to begin with. But was that a foregone conclusion?
The reason why I am insisting here is that the claim that torture flatly does not work provides us with an easy way out of what actually is a tough ethical dilemma. If torture *never *works, not using it is a no brainer. Easy. If, however, it *can *work even if only in very rare and specific circumstances, it gets complicated. Would I forgo the chance to save an 11-year old boy’s life? Wolfgang Daschner did not know that the boy was already dead, although he must have known it was a possibility. For all he knew the boy could have been locked away and abandoned in some hiding place for two days and thus in acute peril. Getting to him quickly was the only way he saw to have at least a chance at saving him. I say he still should not have tortured. What say you?
However, Hiker, I do appreciate the idea. This, altho outside the OP of Intelligence, could be a way where torture gained something of value. But, I cant find a case where torture was applied to a kidnapper and he gave up the location of his living victim in time to save him.
But even if we did, it’d still be outside the purview here.
Right. I had looked at the introductory statement of the OP “Torture doesn’t work”, and this generally I do not agree. When put in context, i.e. stating “Torture is not an effective tool to fight terrorism.” I agree.
The more interesting question to me, however, is: If it *were *an effective tool, would we use it?
True. So if the torturer wants to hear accurate factual information, what are you going to say?
Pretty much all information is of this class. You hardly ever have all the information you want laid out in front of you. Any investigation consists of collecting pieces of evidence and trying to fit them together into an overall pattern.
I think there’s agreement on 3 things:
Torture is morally wrong;
Torture can work, in a few, rare situations;
Whether something is morally right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it is effective or ineffective.
Incidentally, I would like someone to help me formulate a logical explanation: Why is it morally wrong to inflict pain on a terrorist in a torture context, but not wrong to inflict ***equal or greater ***pain in a combat context?
Is it that the torture requires greater malice and intent to harm? (That’s the explanation/argument I’d use.) Is it that a terrorist in combat isn’t defenseless?
Good point. I was way too broad in that statement. I suspect most posters here would take your position. I was thinking more in terms of the OP-- with HRC’s claim. Politicians don’t want to say they will not use torture even when it might work, so it’s much easier for them to latch onto the lifeboat of-- we don’t need to discuss it, because it doesn’t work.
It’s much easier for politicians to go with the easy-to-sell options with anything. They could just as easily go with a “Of course we’ll use torture, we’ll use any means we have available to stop HORRIBLE TERROR ATTACKS” approach, and avoid answering the question that way while taking the opposite position. We don’t need to discuss it, because the possible negative consequences are so bad that it doesn’t matter.
This is a subject in which proof cannot be confirmed by either side of the argument.
That’s going to depend on whether you have the actual factual information, obviously.
You’re going to say something. It might be accurate and factual; it might not be. Unless the torturer already knows the accurate and factual information (in which case, why is he torturing you?), he cannot evaluate the accuracy and factuality of what you are saying. If it’s safe-combination type information and he has the safe, he can test it by trying to open the safe. But if, as is more usual with intelligence gathering, it is not immediately testable in that way, what he has obtained through torture is a claim of doubtful veracity. (“Who’s the leader of the cell? is it Bob? Jim?” “It’s Bob! It’s Bob! For Christ’s sake, stop!” How much confidence do you have that it’s Bob?)
There’s a reason why evidence obtained through torture is not admissible in court proceedings, and it’s not just that we don’t want to give the state an incentive to torture. Back in the day, before any thought of constitutional protections for human rights, evidence obtained through torture was either inadmissible or discounted; it was usless unless corroborated by independent evidence. And the reason for this is that we have always known that evidence obtained by torture has little probative value.
It also involves evaluating the pieces of evidence that you have. And my point his that evidence obtained by torture is of little value.
Which goes back to your first question. It the torturer really wanted to hear acccurate factual information, he wouldn’t be trying to obtain it by torture.
Torture is an effective way to get confessions. When it’s used for that purpose, it tends to be remarkably effective. Most people tortured will, eventually, confess to what the torturer wants them to confess to. This can be useful, sometimes; for instance, in a legal system that values confessions over physical evidence. It’s less effective as a form of interrogation that seeks to get independent information, but as a way to get people to confess to things you know they did, it works pretty well.
It works equally well as a way to get people to confess to things when you have no idea whether they did them or not, and to confess to things you know they didn’t do.
So, it extracts confessions. It doesn’t extract reliable confessions.
Not so, unless you are telling us that indeed witches were real and could fly, but more recently, that the doctors in Libya that confessed under torture about causing an AIDS outbreak there were guilty then.
I just want to be sure I’m understanding your position here. Are you saying that if torture worked, then there would be situations in which you believe it would be justifiable to use torture?
I disagree. I think torture can extract whatever the torturer wants to extract. If a torturer wants everyone to confess their guilt, then he’ll obtain universal confessions. But if a torturer wants to determine whether people are guilty or innocent, he’ll find that out as well. Isn’t that the whole premise behind “a victim will tell the torturer whatever he wants to hear”?
No. The torturer can’t know whether he wants to hear “guilty” or “innocent” unless he already knows whether the victim is guilty or innocent (in which case, he is not torturing him to find out whether he is guilty or innocent; he already knows that).
The victim will say whatever will get the torture to stop. But if the torturer can’t know whether what is said is true or false, whether it is true or false can have no bearing on whether the torturer will respond by stopping the torture. There is no reason to think, therefore, that an honest answer is more likely to end the torture than a dishonest one. The victim will try to assess which answer the torturer will accept, and will offer than answer regardless of its honesty.
In the real world, I don’t think there are many cases where people are tortured to confess or deny a crime when the torturer has no idea whether they are guilty or not. They get tortured because the torturer believes, with a greater or lesser degree of confidence, that they are guilty. In this scenario a confession to the crime will cause the torture to stop; a denial will not. Hence, the victim will confess, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. And the torturer will believe him, because we are always more ready to believe that which confirms our preconceptions than that which is inconsistent with them.
No State should ever condone torture, it simply weakens us all when torture is allowed.
Speaking as an individual,
IF torture worked, and IF I was the one doing the torturing and IF it really was some variation on the “ticking timebomb” then I would be willing to torture and face the legal consequences of my action.