# Torture is Most Likely Very Effective **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098 "2009-04-23T14:22:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/1 "2009-04-23T14:22:15Z")
There are a lot of torture threads around, but those seem to be dealing with broader issues, and include a strong viewpoint that the effectiveness of torture is irrelevant to current consideration of US policy, so I’m hoping for a discussion of the effectiveness issue on it’s own, for those interested. A lot of people have claimed that “experts” have determined that torture is not effective or at least less effective than other available methods, but I am skeptical of all those “experts”. The only person who would qualify as an expert in my view would be someone who has himself participated in numerous tortures as well as other methods, and can compare the results. I would doubt that a lot of people are coming forward brandishing with these credentials. (I’d be interested in being proved wrong on this.) Absent that, all you have is specialists in alternative interrogation techniques claiming that their own technique is better than a method about which they have no particular expertise or experience. Not much to go by. [In addition, I would note that the comparison of torture versus other methods may depend on the nature of the prisoner. In particular, the relative effectiveness of kid gloves treatment versus torture might differ greatly when dealing with a relatively apolitical conscripted POW, versus a fanatical volunteer. So a lot of historical info might not be appropriate in the current situation.] [Here’s](http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) something that looks like a reputable source, and is generally opposed to torture, but from scanning through it, ISTM that they don’t go further than saying that there is no legitimate evidence - in the form of scientific studies and the like - that supports the effectiveness of torture, which is not surprising in any event. The reasons for thinking that torture is effective are obvious, and need not be elaborated on. Someone motivated to refrain from doing X can be compelled to do so by means of torture. And professional interrogators who are not troubled by moral/ethical considerations tend to think that it’s effective and have tended to think so throughout history. Those who claim that torture is ineffective raise many valid points. People can be made to confess to all sorts of false things under torture - essentially a person being tortured will tend to admit to anything that he thinks will stop the torture. This is undoubtedly true. But IMHO, this just suggests that torture needs to be used judiciously in order to be effective. Nothing is effective if used incorrectly. #1 on the list of recommended items is to refrain from trying to force a prisoner to admit to any specific claim (or similarly, to admit something based on a premise that may not be true, e.g. “tell us what you know about Iraq’s WMD”). In addition, one important item frequently left out of these discussions is corroborating information. If you are torturing someone in a complete vacuum, you are at a significant disadvantage. But if you have or can get other sources of information, you can corroborate some of what is being told. Also significant, is that if the prisoner knows that you know things and doesn’t know what you know and what you don’t, there is an incentive to be truthful or suffer consequences. And it’s not as if it’s an either/or situation when it comes to interrogations, and torture can likely be used to increased effect in combination with other methods, e.g. a good cop/bad cop routine. Or truth serum (assuming these actually exist/work) and polygraphs (reservations about their reliability duly noted). These are no doubt easier said than done. I am not claiming it is 100% effective and will always yield complete and reliable information every time. But the same is true of every intelligence gathering method. The question is only whether it will overall give a more complete and accurate picture than would be possible if it were not used. It goes without saying that even if this is all true, it does not necessarily imply that the US should use this technique. In addition to obvious moral issues, there are also practical ones, such as the potential for abuse, PR considerations, legal & treaty considerations, reprisals by other countries, and others (e.g. the psychological impact on the torturers). Nonetheless, the issue of effectiveness is an important part of the discussion, and deserves unbiased consideration IMHO. In sum, I’m interested in discussing what hard evidence there might be that shows torture to be effective or ineffective. If there isn’t any, then this will be a short-lived discussion and we can all go back to our opinions. My own opinion with 90%-95% certainty is that it can be effective. FWIW, here’s a link to the [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) article on torture, and here’s an article from today’s [NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&hp) discussing the uncertainty over whether the current program produced any results that would not have been accomplished otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/2 "2009-04-23T14:35:52Z")
I still think they should do way more research into truth drugs, including using LSD on captives. A lot of these terrorists or suspected terrorists are really uneducated guys with no knowledge of psychedelic drugs or what they do, or the concept of brain chemistry for that matter. I think if you gave some of these guys a heavy dose of mescaline or acid during interrogation, and dressed up as the Prophet Muhammed and said that you were being sent back to earth to check up on the progress of your soldiers, and asked the guy to tell you everything he knew…he would be more likely to do that than if he was tortured. These guys wouldn’t know what acid was or how it was affecting them - they’d think they were having a religious experience. There are lots of other drugs that could potentially be used to. There should be a massive program to develop genuine “truth serums” or the closest thing possible to them. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/3 "2009-04-23T14:36:28Z")
You’ve heard of the witch trials, right? Where under torture people confessed to being witches and were executed? Do you believe in witches? Then why did people confess to being witches under torture? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/4 "2009-04-23T14:40:36Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Do you believe in witches? Then why did people confess to being witches under torture? I addressed this at length in the OP. (In addition, I imagine a lot of the confessed witches were in fact witches. I believe you’ve confused your own disbelief in the power of witchcraft with the beliefs of the accused witches themselves.) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/5 "2009-04-23T14:52:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > A lot of people have claimed that “experts” have determined that torture is not effective or at least less effective than other available methods, but I am skeptical of all those “experts”. The only person who would qualify as an expert in my view would be someone who has himself participated in numerous tortures as well as other methods, and can compare the results. I would doubt that a lot of people are coming forward brandishing with these credentials. (I’d be interested in being proved wrong on this.) Absent that, all you have is specialists in alternative interrogation techniques claiming that their own technique is better than a method about which they have no particular expertise or experience. Not much to go by. Well, you’ve neatly discounted a lot of people with experience who actually are likely to be aware of a variety of techniques and their pros-and-cons even if they have not personally participated. A doctor can tell you the pros-and-cons of marijuana usage without having tried it herself. Anyway: > [@](#): > > I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they’re listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of “ruses and trickery”). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi. > > \ > > I know the counter-argument well – that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that’s not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate.” > > \ > > We’re told that our only options are to persist in carrying out torture or to face another terrorist attack. But there truly is a better way to carry out interrogations – and a way to get out of this false choice between torture and terror. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242\_pf.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html) ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/6 "2009-04-23T14:52:49Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I still think they should do way more research into truth drugs, including using LSD on captives. A lot of these terrorists or suspected terrorists are really uneducated guys with no knowledge of psychedelic drugs or what they do, or the concept of brain chemistry for that matter. I think if you gave some of these guys a heavy dose of mescaline or acid during interrogation, and dressed up as the Prophet Muhammed and said that you were being sent back to earth to check up on the progress of your soldiers, and asked the guy to tell you everything he knew…he would be more likely to do that than if he was tortured. Yes, this is definitely the way to get reliable intelligence information…about the invisible fluorescent pink alien zombies that threaten our essential rutabaga supply with their electric tentacles. To address the o.p., I think this theory calls for a double blind study for an unbiased experimental data set, and suggest that he submit himself as a subject for said study. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/7 "2009-04-23T14:58:20Z")
It should be noted it is not a question of whether torture produces results. It almost certainly does and if it doesn’t then it is just evil. The question on effectiveness (ignoring the morality for the moment) is both: 1. How effective? Does it produce consistently reliable and useful results? and 1. Is it more effective than other means? Question #1 is in serious doubt. Question #2 has been answered. So, even if it was not highly immoral you would not want to do it anyway as other, better options exist. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/8 "2009-04-23T14:59:26Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In addition, I imagine a lot of the confessed witches were in fact witches. Would you please present some evidence for your imaginings? I’m sure torture _can_ work, but in addition to the fact that it’s flagrantly wrong, I believe there are too many potential problems and confounds to make it a reliable source of information. Mostly, people being tortured will say whatever they believe their interrogators want to hear. Sometimes that means telling them the truth, other times it doesn’t. It’s the latter that explains the witch confessions. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/9 "2009-04-23T15:05:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In addition, I imagine a lot of the confessed witches were in fact witches. “It’s a fair cop.” Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/10 "2009-04-23T15:06:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > A doctor can tell you the pros-and-cons of marijuana usage without having tried it herself. He’d be basing it on his observations or those of others. Your quote is from a guy who by his own admission did not use torture and who does not even claim that it’s ineffective. He only claims that his own method is effective, and it may well be. Question is whether torture would add something, and he does not even comment on that (to his credit). > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Question #2 has been answered. Not by anything shown here (see above). > [@Marley23](#): > > Would you please present some evidence for your imaginings? If I could, I wouldn’t have said “I imagine”. But it seems logical to me. In a society in which virtually everyone believed in (the powers of) witchcraft it would make sense if some people would practice it. And it would also make sense if a disproportionate percentage of these people were accused of it. But regardless, that was a parenthetical remark. As above, I acknowledged in the OP that you can force people to confess to anything. The effectiveness of torture would be when you are not trying to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/11 "2009-04-23T15:11:45Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In addition, I imagine a lot of the confessed witches were in fact witches. I swear I head the sound of a record needle scratching when I read this. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/12 "2009-04-23T15:16:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In sum, I’m interested in discussing what hard evidence there might be that shows torture to be effective or ineffective. If there isn’t any, then this will be a short-lived discussion and we can all go back to our opinions. > [@Lemur866](#): > > You’ve heard of the witch trials, right? Where under torture people confessed to being witches and were executed? > > Do you believe in witches? Then why did people confess to being witches under torture? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I addressed this at length in the OP. > > (In addition, I imagine a lot of the confessed witches were in fact witches. I believe you’ve confused your own disbelief in the power of witchcraft with the beliefs of the accused witches themselves.) @ **Fotheringay-Phipps** : You asked for hard evidence and **Lemur** gave you hard evidence – the historical record of people falsely confessing under torture. You summarily dismissed this, claiming you addressed this “at length” in your OP. In fact, you spent perhaps a sentence or two on the issue. You noted this is a common objection, that the record shows it to be well-founded, but that torture performed “correctly” (a never-explained concept) will not suffer this defect. It would be rather like my insistence that telekinesis is very helpful with the housework. Oh, it hasn’t been for you? Well, of course, you must use it correctly. I suppose you do say that torturing for information on specific claims is verboten. Again, we are not told how such torture would proceed. Does the torturer say “Let’s have a chat while you’re on this Catherine wheel!”? At any rate, this is almost immediately undermined by your caveat that the torturer needs to be able to corroborate the information gotten, which would seem to require that specific claims are being investigated under torture. In short, by using a smattering of informal fallacies, including [argumentum ad ignoratiam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantiam) and [begging the question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitio_principii), you have crafted an apparent proof of the utility of torture. It goes without saying, the effect is merely illusory. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/13 "2009-04-23T15:18:46Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > “It’s a fair cop.” “But society’s to blame.” ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/14 "2009-04-23T15:18:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In addition, one important item frequently left out of these discussions is corroborating information. If you are torturing someone in a complete vacuum, you are at a significant disadvantage. But if you have or can get other sources of information, you can corroborate some of what is being told. Also significant, is that if the prisoner knows that you know things and doesn’t know what you know and what you don’t, there is an incentive to be truthful or suffer consequences. Actually, in a very important way it is the proponents of the efficacy of torture who view it in a vacuum. Pointing to an incident, and saying because person X was tortured, terrorist event Y was prevented is not an adequate analysis. Even if that were true, and even if terrorist event Y could not have been otherwise prevented, it ignores the other effects of torturing person X. If said torture, as is likely, leads to the radicalization of persons X1 through X100, who go on to commit terrorist acts Y1 through Y100, the effectiveness of torture is pretty much in dispute, wouldn’t you say? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/15 "2009-04-23T15:20:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your quote is from a guy who by his own admission did not use torture and who does not even claim that it’s ineffective. He only claims that his own method is effective, and it may well be. Question is whether torture would add something, and he does not even comment on that (to his credit). It’s a damn sight more than you’ve got for evidence. Interestingly torture advocates are very slim on any proof. I think people are more informed by movies and just assume that one tough guy threatening to break someone’s fingers makes the bad guys spill the beans everytime. The real world is a different place. This article is old but confirms this notion: > [@](#): > > But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I’m repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods (“Too Nice for Our Own Good” was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week’s trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I’ve heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians “really know how to get these things done.” I’ve heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I’ve heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria – and they lost that war anyway. “Liberals,” argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, “have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective.” But it’s also true that “realists,” whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else. > > By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was “not nice,” he says. “But we did not physically abuse them.” Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet – as he remembers saying to the “desperate and honorable officers” who wanted him to move faster – “if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy’s genitals, he’s going to tell you just about anything,” which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn’t know “any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/16 "2009-04-23T15:24:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If I could, I wouldn’t have said “I imagine”. Right. > [@](#): > > But it seems logical to me. Which means nothing. > [@](#): > > As above, I acknowledged in the OP that you can force people to confess to anything. The effectiveness of torture would be when you are not trying to do that. No, you’re just looking to exclude inconvenient facts. This is really simple: people will confess to just about anything to make torture stop, and that effects the reliability of the information gained from torture. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/17 "2009-04-23T15:27:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > He’d be basing it on his observations or those of others. > > Your quote is from a guy who by his own admission did not use torture and who does not even claim that it’s ineffective. He only claims that his own method is effective, and it may well be. Question is whether torture would add something, and he does not even comment on that (to his credit). But if we have some evidence that torture isn’t effective, and we have this evidence that there are very effective ways to interrogate without torture, couldn’t we just use the techniques that don’t diminish us as a people? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/18 "2009-04-23T15:32:34Z")
As others have said, the OP has set up a situation in which the only way torture is done correctly is if it elicits truthful information. If torture doesn’t get truthful information, then the torture wasn’t done correctly. I’ll tell you what, the only true Scotsmen are those who know how to torture correctly. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/19 "2009-04-23T15:35:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “But society’s to blame.” “Agreed!” ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/20 "2009-04-23T15:37:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “But society’s to blame.” “We’ll be charging them as well.” Stranger [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098.md?page=2)