# Torturing Suspected Terrorists
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [October 22, 2001, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846 "2001-10-22T12:59:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2001, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846/81 "2001-11-05T03:32:26Z")
From the NY Times: [Torture Seeps Into Discussion by News Media](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/05/business/media/05TORT.html)
> [@](#):
>
> In many quarters, the Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter is considered a liberal. Yet there he was last week, raising this question:
>
> “In this autumn of anger,” he wrote, “even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to . . . torture.” He added that he was not necessarily advocating the use of “cattle prods or rubber hoses” on men detained in the investigation into the terrorist attacks. Only, “something to jump-start the stalled investigation of the greatest crime in American history.”
>
> The column which ran under the headline “Time to Think About Torture” set off alarm bells at human rights organizations. The sense of alarm was heightened because Mr. Alter is just one of a growing number of voices in the mainstream news media raising, if not necessarily agreeing with, the idea of torturing terrorism suspects or detainees who refuse to talk.
> [@](#):
>
> In Slate, the online magazine, Dahlia Lithwick wrote, “There’s no doubt that torturing terrorists and their associates for information works.” But the Oct. 19 article, “Tortured Justice,” primarily raised a host of moral and legal problems associated with torture.
> [@](#):
>
> Of course, even that level of discourse is considerably disturbing to groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which criticize the use of torture by regimes around the world. And yet, even their leaders said they understood the source of the sentiments.
>
> “It reflects people’s fear, and the somewhat unexamined instinct to do whatever it takes to meet the threat,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “And when people step back for a moment, they understand there are reasons why you don’t want to open the door.”
>
> Mr. Roth said he had appeared on CNN and Fox News Channel to discuss those reasons, chief among them that torture often produces false information and that various international laws forbid it.
---
### Author:  [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2001, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846/82 "2001-11-05T04:59:57Z")
Has anyone watched the film I recommended?
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2001, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846/83 "2001-11-05T06:02:28Z")
Lets go back to Zenster’s scenario.
I will stipulate that 99% of people will break under torture. Eventually. And many times that torture must contain a psychological component to be effective, even if it is merely the threat of future torture and the promise that the torture will stop if only the subject will do what the tormenters want.
But that takes a certain amount of time. If an attack is immanent, and therefore torture must be used to obtain the information quickly, then the subject has a powerful psychological incentive to stall for time. He knows that all he has to do is hold out until the attack succeeds, then it will be over. And of course, he can give false information. It will take time to show that the information is false. Sure, you can torture him worse when it is proved that he gave false information. But why aren’t you torturing him the worst way you know how to begin with?
A certain buildup would be useful if you have unlimited time at your disposal. But those methods take time.
Anyway, the Soviets proved that medieval torture methods are completely uneccesary. All that is needed is time and persistance. Simply strip the prisoner naked, splash some cold water on him occasionally and keep him freezing cold. Interrogators work in shifts, preventing the subject from sleeping. After several days the subject will do whatever you want, and he won’t have a single mark on him.
However, as I said above, this method is useless for obtaining timely information, since the subject knows that he only has to endure for a short time. And torture is usually effective only because the subject knows that you have unlimited time and resources, and all you have to do is give them a little thing and it will stop.
Again, giving police authority to torture is counterproductive. As **spoke-** mentioned, perhaps there are circumstances where torture might be neccesary. If so, the stakes must be high enough that the interrogator should be willing to sacrifice his job or even face criminal charges rather than do without the information. If an agent isn’t willing to throw away his career to get the information, then I guess it wasn’t all that important after all.
---
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2002, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846/84 "2002-12-26T14:26:05Z")
[CIA using ‘stress and duress’ interrogation techniques](http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/26/attacks.cia.reut/index.html)
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2002, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846/85 "2002-12-26T14:48:12Z")
I was just about to start a new thread on that story, Izzy. Give me 10 or 15 minutes and I’ll have the OP up and running, and I’ll be sure to include a link to this thread.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torturing-suspected-terrorists/88846.md?page=4)