# 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:** 4
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/61 "2009-04-23T18:19:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You are accepting that the torturers said they got actionable information. Even that term doesn’t necessarily mean what it implies. If they got some nonsense made up on the spot to stop the pain, that’s “information”. If it’s something like “The guy across the street is making bombs in his basement”, then you can go grab the guy across the street. That makes that “information” “_actionable_”. But it’s still all nonsense. ---
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/62 "2009-04-23T18:22:34Z")
> [@villa](#): > > My argument is the prevalence of torture has nothing **necessarily** to do with whether the torturer thinks it gains credible information. The preconception on the torturer’s part that the subject really does have real and useful information, and that torture will get it out of him since nothing else has done the trick, just makes there be more torture. If the torturer can’t accept the possibility that the subject might not really be a witch after all, then he’ll do what it takes to prove that he is. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/63 "2009-04-23T18:25:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You can argue that virtually anything is ineffective by suggesting stupid ways in which it might be used. And you can argue that virtually anything is effective by suggesting hopelessly rose-colored, pie-in-the-sky, perfect world scenarios in which it might be used. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t take a lot of brains to figure out that this may not be a good idea. Gee, but all these “experts” that you’re falling back on as evidence (“they do it so it _must_ work”) were also torturing off these brainless ideas. So which is it–are they authorities because they do it, or are they unrealible because they don’t do it “properly”? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/64 "2009-04-23T18:30:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > (There are probably voodoo witches all over Haiti now, and regardless of the efficacy of their powers, if one of them admitted sticking pins into dolls etc. it would not be a “false confession”.) However, this “true confession” from somebody with delusions would not lead to any information that would be of any use whatsoever. But you don’t seem to have a problem with that. As long as _they thought_ they were witches that’s good enough for you to call their torture session “successful” We now know that witches exist and we must guard against them. The mind boggles. Yes, torture will get people to talk. They will tell you stuff. They will confess their delusions or whatever. However, from cites above from ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE AGENTS that try to get information for a living, we have learned that the information obtained is NOT USEFUL. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/65 "2009-04-23T18:40:16Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Aaand we’re back to “torture works because we torture, if it didn’t work we wouldn’t torture, stands to reason”. That seems reasonable to me, unless you mean something specific by your use of “we”. “It’s likely that Method X works because many professionals tend to rely on it” is a reasonable statement. > [@](#): > > You have been given cites that the CIA people who performed the torture at the insistant request of the Bush administration themselves didn’t think it worked. I don’t recall this. Where was this cited? > [@](#): > > I’d like to see a real, pro-torture expert cite. Just one would be swell, TYVM. Torturers don’t tend to publicize what they do, for obvious reasons. > [@](#): > > Another question I’d like you to answer would be : if we are to assume torture does indeed produce incontrovertibly better results, why not use it across the board ? I’ve nowhere advocated torturing anyone, let alone “across the board”. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How is it an “expansive interpretation”? Are we speaking the same language? He quite clearly calls torture pointless and is clearly intimating it is pointless because it does not produce useful results. He gave a specific exaggerated example and said it would be pointless. He wasn’t commenting on the general efficiency of torture. (ISTM that the position of guys like him is "we have other methods that work, and torture is not foolproof either, in addition to a host of other problems, so it’s not worth it.) And if he was, he wasn’t qualified to do so, since he had no experience using that method. > [@](#): > > As for your definition of what constitutes “torture” you are moving the goal posts. Someone may claim harsh language is torture. My parents yelling at me when I was a kid I deemed tortuous. For the purposes of this thread I’ll assume defined torture of which there is no doubt that it is torture. As it happens waterboarding has in the past been defined by the US as torture. That’s a valid point. > [@](#): > > That interrogators of the past thought it was effective does not mean it was effective. That’s true. I said earlier that they could be wrong. As could similar interrogators today in places that don’t have moral qualms about torture. As could the CIA people who pushed for this particular program. They could all be wrong. But the experts that you quote could also be wrong. You can’t find a few interrogators who say it’s ineffective and ignore the fact that the majority of professionals appear to believe that (absent moral and other considerations) it’s effective. > [@villa](#): > > You are being so circular here. It’s **you** making the argument that some people must think torture is effective (at gaining information) because they do it. My argument is the prevalence of torture has nothing **necessarily** to do with whether the torturer thinks it gains credible information. There are many other reasons they might be torturing the person. You gave specific examples of instances where torture was not used to extract genuine information. But it’s also true that many interrogators who are trying to extract information also favor torture. > [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Gee, but all these “experts” that you’re falling back on as evidence (“they do it so it _must_ work”) were also torturing off these brainless ideas. How do you know that? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/66 "2009-04-23T18:50:26Z")
Isn’t torture “most likely very effective” as a coercive method in [rubber-hose cryptanalysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis)? If the password gains entry to the needed data, we can sidestep the whole “we can’t know if it works” business. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/67 "2009-04-23T18:55:29Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That seems reasonable to me, unless you mean something specific by your use of “we”. “It’s likely that Method X works because many professionals tend to rely on it” is a reasonable statement. I would like to know who these “many professionals” are, and if they have put their faith in the usefulness of torture in writing anywhere. Cite please. Hopefully a cite from someone with credibility, such as retired Air Force Col. Steven M. Kleinman, a former military-interrogation instructor, or Jack Jacobs, Retired Army Colonel, Medal of Honor Recipient for actions in Vietnam plus 2 Silver Stars, 3 Bronze Stars and 2 Purple Hearts. eta: Sorry, did not read this bit from you: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Torturers don’t tend to publicize what they do, for obvious reasons. Ahhh, so no cites will be forthcoming, because the REALLY GOOD torturers keep everything all secret like. Gotchya. Torture works, because we do it, but we can’t provide evidence that it works, just trust me. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/68 "2009-04-23T18:58:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That seems reasonable to me, unless you mean something specific by your use of “we”. “It’s likely that Method X works because many professionals tend to rely on it” is a reasonable statement. It isn’t, and that’s why your reasoning falls flat on its arse. A correct statement would be “many professionals tend to rely on Method X because they believe it works”, but that’s no indication at all that Method X actually does work. Lots of people rely on astrology, dousing for water and programming in Visual Basic (_shudder_). Does that mean astrology, dousing for water and programming in Visual Basic are strong, reliable methods ? > [@](#): > > I don’t recall this. Where was this cited? Hmm, not this thread, I apologize for that. Either one of the two other “Isn’t torture swell ?” threads going on ATM > [@](#): > > Torturers don’t tend to publicize what they do, for obvious reasons. I’m sorry, what ? So… where do you get the idea that the majority of experts do think it works ? Do you assume that anyone not making an explicit “it doesn’t work” statement for the press must therefore think it does work ? Because the evidence in favor of torture isn’t likely to be published, and you can find no published testimony in favor of it, it must be deduced that evidence in favor of torture exists ? Absense of proof is proof of proof ? That’s a novel logical fallacy, I’ll grant you that. > [@](#): > > I’ve nowhere advocated torturing anyone, let alone “across the board”. Nevertheless, consider it an hypothetical. Why wouldn’t it be the justified and logical followup of condoning torture under the guise of “national emergency” ? What is the hurdle in the way of that slippery slope ? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/69 "2009-04-23T19:01:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Torturers don’t tend to publicize what they do, for obvious reasons. I’m rather dense. What are those obvious reasons? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/70 "2009-04-23T19:02:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Torturers don’t tend to publicize what they do, for obvious reasons. > > \<\\> > > But it’s also true that many interrogators who are trying to extract information also favor torture. Seems like a bit of a disconnect here, doesn’t it. You say that torturers don’t publisize what they do, so how could you possibly know what they favor? We know that Bush Administration officials favored it, having ordered. We can _infer_ that CIA and Military heads favored it, having ordered it. Is it possible that interrogators would have preferred other methods, but were directed to user torture for the sake of expedience? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/71 "2009-04-23T19:04:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > How do you know that? FACT: We have tortured people who were randomly picked up (by bounty hunters, etc.) FACT: You said, “More importantly, there are obviously any number of other interrogators who think it’s highly effective. As proof (of their belief, that is): they do it!” Since this is your only “evidence” that there are experts out there who have “proof” that torture works, then inevitably, people from Group One (those who tortured random people) must fall in as a subset of Group Two (those who torture who think it’s highly effective). That means that despite your assertion that torturing random people is a Brainless Idea, it was some of your very same Interrogators whose experience and motivation you so faithfully rely on that chose to indulge in that Brainless Idea. So, if they’re so smart, why’d they do something so stupid? Or, if they’re really that stupid, how reliable can they possibly be on torture’s effectiveness in the first place? ---
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/72 "2009-04-23T19:07:53Z")
Also on the “not very effective torture” side is John McCain. The North Vietnamese hurt him a great deal but I guess they tortured him wrong. Or else I imagine he served with some Green Bay Packers. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/73 "2009-04-23T19:19:44Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I’m rather dense. What are those obvious reasons? Bad PR. > [@spooje](#): > > Seems like a bit of a disconnect here, doesn’t it. You say that torturers don’t publisize what they do, so how could you possibly know what they favor? It’s like the kid who came running in screaming “Jimmy wanted to hit me!” “How do you know he wanted to hit me?” If he didn’t want to hit me, then why did he?" > [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > FACT: We have tortured people who were randomly picked up (by bounty hunters, etc.) > > FACT: You said, “More importantly, there are obviously any number of other interrogators who think it’s highly effective. As proof (of their belief, that is): they do it!” > > Since this is your only “evidence” that there are experts out there who have “proof” that torture works, then inevitably, people from Group One (those who tortured random people) must fall in as a subset of Group Two (those who torture who think it’s highly effective). > > That means that despite your assertion that torturing random people is a Brainless Idea, it was some of your very same Interrogators whose experience and motivation you so faithfully rely on that chose to indulge in that Brainless Idea. > > So, if they’re so smart, why’d they do something so stupid? Or, if they’re really that stupid, how reliable can they possibly be on torture’s effectiveness in the first place? This is similar to the logical error that others have made in this thread. There are any number of people in any field who have made egregious errors. That doesn’t mean you can dismiss the views of a substantial percentage of the professionals in a field since some subset of these professionals are incompetent. Using your logical approach you could just as easily sweep away the views of doctors, physicists or any other field. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Lots of people rely on astrology, dousing for water and programming in Visual Basic (_shudder_). Does that mean astrology, dousing for water and programming in Visual Basic are strong, reliable methods? You are defining the field in terms of the method, which is not logical. An astrologer is only trained in astrology, and isn’t selecting this as the best method of predicting the future out of the many he has available. Also, there is other evidence WRT to astrology et al. > [@](#): > > Hmm, not this thread, I apologize for that. Either one of the two other “Isn’t torture swell ?” threads going on ATM Maybe you can find it. I don’t believe it. What I’ve seen is that the CIA interrogators believed in a specific instance that the prisoner had no more information to give, not that the methods in general weren’t working. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/74 "2009-04-23T19:22:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > He gave a specific exaggerated example and said it would be pointless. He wasn’t commenting on the general efficiency of torture. (ISTM that the position of guys like him is "we have other methods that work, and torture is not foolproof either, in addition to a host of other problems, so it’s not worth it.) And if he was, he wasn’t qualified to do so, since he had no experience using that method. This (and your previous responses about this guy) has to be one of the most evasive pile of semantics I have seen in ages. So far you are the only person remotely parsing what this guy said this way (and the others as well). It is apparent from his comments that he finds torture “pointless” in his professional opinion. A profession I might add that saw him at the pointy end of the sword…not some office somewhere. I also submit that you have no idea what he was or wasn’t qualified to do. He was an interrogator in the Vietnam war and he resisted pressure to torture from his superiors opting instead for what he knew, as a professional, achieved better results. I do not know but what little I can glean of the guy from the article suggests to me he’d light a Bunsen burner under your nutsack in a heartbeat if he thought it’d save American lives. Not that he is a sadist but that he’d do what he felt necessary to protect his troops. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/75 "2009-04-23T19:33:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is similar to the logical error that others have made in this thread. > > There are any number of people in any field who have made egregious errors. That doesn’t mean you can dismiss the views of a substantial percentage of the professionals in a field since some subset of these professionals are incompetent. > > Using your logical approach you could just as easily sweep away the views of doctors, physicists or any other field. The problem is, everytime you’re presented with evidence that torture is ineffective (though incompetency, lack of proper protocol, etc.), your answer is always that “They’re not doing it right.” But everytime an Interrogator claims that the method is effective, you state “They _are_ doing it right.” But you have absolutely no evidence for either. You even make claims (“substantial percentage”, “obviously any number”) that have no support in data–just your substance-less assumptions. You don’t know that my assertion is false; you simply dismiss it because it doesn’t conform with your preconceived notion of what’s correct and incorrect. Yours is a cozy self-perpetuating fallacy–every piece of data that agrees with you is acceptable, and every piece of data that doesn’t is an anomaly that can be ignored for no other reason than that you choose to. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/76 "2009-04-23T19:35:43Z")
If we’re going to cast morality aside I’d like to advocate shock collars for middle schoolers, they’ll never be late for school again. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/77 "2009-04-23T19:42:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Bad PR. > > It’s like the kid who came running in screaming “Jimmy wanted to hit me!” > > “How do you know he wanted to hit me?” > > If he didn’t want to hit me, then why did he?" This is how you keep shifting the goal posts. You are talking about torture being effective to gather information. You then say that because people torture, we know they think it is effective in gathering information. The assumption you are making, for which you do not provide evidence, is that the people engaging in torture are doing it to gather information. There are, as I have said, many other possible reasons for torturing people. No one denies torture is “effective” in inflicting pain. If the sole purpose is the infliction of the pain, then arguing whether it is effective or not is pretty meaningless. As I have said multiple times now, knowing that people torture others willingly doesn’t tell you more than that the torturers believe in torture. It certainly doesn’t tell you they think it is an effective method of information gathering. We know Jimmy wanted to hit the other kid because Jimmy hit the other kid. We don’t know if Jimmy wanted to hit the other kid because he was trying to get his lunch money, or because Jimmy didn’t like his shirt, or because Jimmy wanted to look tough in front of other kids. Similarly you have provided us no proof that the main purpose of torture was to extract information. Even if a partial aim was to get information, it is perfectly possible that those ordering the torture knew there were equally effective other methods of getting said information, but chose torture for the other things it brings which more legal interrogation techniques don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/78 "2009-04-23T19:43:00Z")
Here’s the bottom line. “Is torture effective ?” is a solved problem, and has been for a long time. And the answer is “no”, except for sadism, producing terror ( there ought to be a name for that; something with an ‘ism’ on the end ), and for getting answers you want to hear regardless of truth. It’s the epitome of a bad idea; it’s ineffective, it’s evil, it makes your own situation worse, it floods you with bad data, it destroys your sources of good data. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So torture doesn’t make people tell the truth. Torture makes people talk. And once they start talking it’s just another interrogation. They talk and the interrogator decides if it’s true or false based on the knowledge he has. No, that’s not how it works. Torture poisons the well; the victim becomes a far less reliable source permanently. [QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps] More importantly, there are obviously any number of other interrogators who think it’s highly effective. As proof (of their belief, that is): they do it! They could all be wrong, of course. But pointing out that this interrogator or that one thinks it’s ineffective is ignoring the fact that a substantial number of other experts - the majority, ISTM - disagree with these people. (And this is even assuming that Stephens et al had experience with both methods.) [/QUOTE] No, [they did it because they were ignorant](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30338039/), as well as evil. > [@](#): > > According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans. > > They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation, or that the Justice Department lawyer most responsible for declaring the methods legal had idiosyncratic ideas that even the Bush Justice Department would later renounce. > > The process was “a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm,” a former C.I.A. official said. The experts were the ones that opposed torture; the people who supported it WEREN’T experts. The experts in question being people who HAVE tortured, in order to train people to resist it - but those same people say that it isn’t effective for gathering information. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > [QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps] > Torturers don’t tend to publicize what they do, for obvious reasons. Ahhh, so no cites will be forthcoming, because the REALLY GOOD torturers keep everything all secret like. Gotchya. Torture works, because we do it, but we can’t provide evidence that it works, just trust me. [/QUOTE] I’m strongly reminded of certain religious arguments I encounter. “The faithful have proof ! But only the faithful can see it !” > [@spooje](#): > > Seems like a bit of a disconnect here, doesn’t it. You say that torturers don’t publisize what they do, so how could you possibly know what they favor? > > We know that Bush Administration officials favored it, having ordered. We can _infer_ that CIA and Military heads favored it, having ordered it. > > Is it possible that interrogators would have preferred other methods, but were directed to user torture for the sake of expedience? As I recall, the torturers and the professional interrogaters were separate people; the interrogators complained about the torturers ruining their interrogations. About how they **stopped** getting useful data once the torturers stepped in. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/79 "2009-04-23T19:46:42Z")
I’m guessing that the OP thinks: 1. That all the torture dissenters don’t know how to torture correctly. 2. Therefore no one has proved that torture isn’t effective. The OP gives a few examples of how torture can be used more correctly. However, we don’t really know if his methods have been used or not. I think it’s unlikely that the experts cited haven’t come up with the idea of corroborating information or of not asking specific questions. Yet since no one was cited saying that these methods described by the OP weren’t effective, no one has conclusively proved the OP wrong. In my opinion if there was an effective way to use torture, then someone would have wrote about it by now. It is not enough to say that no one wants to write about it. Once the methods are exposed there is no reason to hide how effective they are. The OP seems to be content in believing that torture is effective without any evidence, but all he has really proved so far is that it might be possible for torture to be effective. Two very different things. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/80 "2009-04-23T19:54:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That doesn’t mean you can dismiss the views of a substantial percentage of the professionals in a field since some subset of these professionals are incompetent. What exactly is this “substantial percentage of professionals”? 58%? 74%? and where do you get this idea from anyway? What information source are you using that gives you the insight that “a substantial percentage” of individuals have the view that torture gives reliable information? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098.md?page=5)