Note that I am not claiming that these are conclusive, and frankly don’t think they add all that much to what I already know - that a lot of interrogators believe that torture is effective. I only cite this because other people have questioned that knowlege, which was primarily logic rather than cite-based.
There’s obviously no need to shoot people specifically. But either they or others whose work they’ve reviewed will have actually shot a gun at close range and examined the results.
Anyone who claims that torture is effective should, himself, be tortured- with the goal of getting the claimant to admit that it’s not effective.
If the claimant can resist the torture, then it’s not an effective method of coercion, as the techniques can be resisted, thereby invalidating torture as a method of obtaining the truth.
If the claimant cannot resist the torture (and, to stop the torture, admits that torture is ineffective), then it’s evident that torture can get whatever result the torturer wants… thereby invalidating torture as a method of obtaining the truth.
Yes, I know, but that’s no reason to pass up a joke, is it ?
And it does make a point, too : it’s blindingly obvious to me a torturee would have a much more valid opinion re. the efficacity of torture than a torturer. McCain happens to be a torturee… and an opponent of torture on practical grounds : it doesn’t work.
And in that they differ from interrogation experts who have reviewed the work of people who commited torture and examined their results…how ?
Note the last bit. That is provably and patently false. We have cited numerous interrogators who claim notable successes without resorting to torture.
This is the refrain of a man rationalizing what he did…not that of someone expert in various means of interrogation.
And then this (again from BBC link above):
Effective? I do not know how he measures effectiveness but follow the link to the following (very long) analysis of the French war in Algeria. It is very arguable that resorting to torture not only single-handedly lost France that war but nearly resulted in another French Revolution in France itself (and France had done some parts of the war down there remarkably well and may have won it).
“In 2006, a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers set out to settle the matter. They sought to find the most effective interrogation tactics and advise the U.S. government on their use. Their conclusions, laid out in a 372-page report for the director of national intelligence, argued against harsh interrogation.”
Do you really think they just ignored harsh interrogation methods? Do you think no one was ever tortured at the hands of the US government or military? I suspect they have quite a body of information on this. Not only from their own experiences but those of Japanese and German records from WWII, not to mention the French in Algeria and so on.
The people who were at the heart of the SERE program the Bush administration used as a basis for their use of torture ? The people who examined what kind of interrogation captured US soldiers would be likely to face at the hands of enemies of the US, and prepared them for that ; yet also stated they weren’t good methods to get information, and discouraged the rest of the army from using them ?
Of course, they could all have been commie infiltrators sowing the seeds of the downfall of the US. There’s no conclusive evidence to the contrary, is there ?
You’re essentially disagreeing with those experts. Which is your prerogative, and you have experts who agree with you. But you can’t claim that all the experts agree with you. Some do and some don’t.
I disagree with your claim that the first guy’s statement is “patently false”. There are claims that other methods work, but no one has ever claimed that any method (including torture) can get everyone to spill the beans about everything. It’s a relative statement, and this guy is claiming that torture works better than other methods.
If you want to play the motivation game, then I could just as easily claim that the interrogators who support you only do so for other reasons, and want to justify their approach.
Bottom line is that the claim that “the experts” agree that torture is ineffective is flatly untrue.
Re the Algerian War, you are pointing to other ramifications of torture as a policy, which are - as noted in the OP - beyond the scope of this thread.
Why don’t you actually read it and tell us what they say they looked at?
Beyond that, as noted seemingly endlessly, these people did not claim to have shown that torture is ineffective.
Really, you people should read the cited work instead of just citing it endlessly under the pretense that it says something that it doesn’t say.
*“The people will never give you anything without torture, that I can assure you.” *
So, he is assuring us that you cannot get anything (information I presume) without torture.
That is absolutely, 100% wrong. We know it to be wrong, we have proof it is wrong.
It is a self serving comment made to rationalize what he did.
Really, it is incumbent upon you to find the error. I cited a source whose bona fides are rather impeccable. They clearly called into question torture’s effectiveness as cited from that study by a guy who teaches interrogation techniques for the US government.
If you want to debunk it that is your job, not mine.
Your linguistic gymnastics do not fool people here. Your OP has been shredded and you have retreated to trying to wiggle through logic loopholes to pretend you still have a rational argument.
I think you’re confusing where the burden of proof should lie. It is not up to the non-torturers to prove it doesn’t work. It’s up to the torturers to prove it does work. “It doesn’t work” is a non-falsifiable claim, which makes it theoretically impossible to prove. The best non-torturers can theoretically do is say “it has not ever been shown to work”, which as several people have pointed out to you already, has been demonstrated to be true. What’s lacking in this discussion is anyone who can actually show torture does work. Since the burden of proof is on the people making the falsifiable claim “torture works”, and the people making that claim can not actually demonstrate such, it is perfectly reasonable to assume torture does not work.
I’m losing track of our baseline here: when John McCain says, as he frequently doesn, that nobody can resist torture forever, taking note of his personal experience in signing a confession to war crimes and being an “air pirate,” does that count as an instance of torture being effective?
This is ridiculous. A man standing accused of murder claims it was self defense, and the deceased pulled a gun on him. An eyewitness on the other hand claims that the deceased had no weapon, and the accused put the gun into the victim’s hand after shooting him in cold blood. While we can absolutely play the motivation game, and just as easily claim the eyewitness has his own reasons for making things up (while failing to provide what those reasons might be), the motivation of the accused for lying is pretty damn obvious.
I cannot believe you do not find it self evident that those who have been accused of torture mught have a very obvious reason for overstating the efficacy of such behavior. While there may well be biases on the other side, the burden is greater on the side of torture. Opponents of torture can say “even if it works, we shouldn’t do it.” To defend torture, one has to say “it works, and the benefits outweigh the costs.” If torture is ineffective, then it cannot be justified even by those who accept it as a possibility for a civilized nation. If it is effective, it can still be opposed. The incentive to misrepresent the effectiveness of torture is therefore greater for those who seek to justify it, most particularly if those people have been the torturer themselves - to admit that it is not effective is to admit that they tortured for nothing.
That’s the problem. Torture is bloody effective at what is often its main purpose - the infliction of pain. The OP seems, though he has been somewhat reticent about defining anything, to view effectiveness in terms of useful and truthful information extracted.
Other than the fact that they don’t claim what you say they claim this would be very impressive.
To the extent that there’s a “burden of proof” on anyone in this discussion, it’s on those who are claiming that something has been proved, which is those claiming that it has been proved that torture doesn’t work. Myself, I don’t claim anything has been proved, but I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of it being effective.
Something does not become more likely to be true because it’s difficult to show it to be true even if it is.
That’s true. Essentially, no one can really show anything conclusive on either side, so the only thing left is opinions.
Hey, that seems familiar …
What I find exasperating is that people like you ignore the fact that i’ve repeatedly addressed this very point (if not the specific cite) beginning with the OP.
Yes you can torture people into anything, if that’s your goal. The effective use of torture would be if that’s not your goal. Reread the OP.
Fine…with the caveat that “proof” can be elusive and that a complete study on torture has not been conducted the best we can go in is the “preponderance of evidence” which, as has been shown over and over here, argues against the “weigh of the evidence” being in your favor.
Your first point is wrong. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. You made the claim that torture is likely to be effective.
Do you understand the concept of falsifiability? That might go a long way toward clearing up this discussion. There are jillions of flat out ridiculous claims that are not falsifiable, such as “the world doesn’t exist, and our senses are being deceived by aliens with giant supercomputers”. You can’t show conclusive evidence against that, because claiming something DOESN’T exist, or DOESN’T work, or ISN’T effective, is generally non-falsifiable. Your claim that torture works because nobody can prove is doesn’t work is exactly as ridiculous as claiming we are all really computer programs being tricked into thinking we’re alive because nobody can prove we’re not. In both cases, the opposing view can only say “you can not demonstrate any evidence for that claim”, and in both cases this is quite enough to make the assumption the claim is false.
None of the points in your quote seem to be from studies of torture and they look to me like the authors made inferences from other known psychological phenomena. The exception is the final sentence of the first bullet point. I would be interested in the basis for this claim, but as it is, “seems to weigh against” is not a strong claim, IMHO.
The second quote is about attitudinal change, which is not what we’re discussing.
I’ve discussed the weight of evidence in my opinion in the OP.
I was clear upfront that it’s my opinion and I gave the basis for the opinion in the OP.
I’ve not made any such ridiculous claim.
All I said - for what seems like the zillionth time - is that there’s a dearth of hard information and in the absence of this we are left with opinions, and mine is that it likely works, for reasons enumerated.