Utility of torture

[Simulacrum]

Note: I did not originally claim that torture is useless; only that it is an abhorrent violation of human rights. However, this is where the discussion has gone:

 

Except that, y'know, torture and indefinite detention are abhorrent practices which we should strive to eliminate.

 

That is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel that there are times and places where torture can be useful. We can elaborate later in another topic if you want me to get into those details. Same thing with indefinite detention.

Leaving aside my ethical objections to torture for a moment, I challenge the idea that torture can be "useful" on three grounds:

 

1. Strategic grounds: The decision to use torture affects the policies of ourselves, our allies, and our enemies, and certainly not in ways that further our goals. As the United States pursues and ideological war on terror, it would be inevitably self-defeating to implement policies of terror in our own service.
   
2. Scientific grounds: Torture does not create an incentive to tell the truth, but an incentive to tell any story that will make the torture stop. Additionally, the psychological effects of torture can inhibit the memories of valuable sources, and sometimes kill them.
   
3. Empirical grounds: The FBI's own experts are critical of both torture's theoretical usefulness and its record in the present campaign. If there is some dystopia where torture is necessary, or even useful, we are not yet living in it.
   

 

With those objections in mind, what are these situations where torture can be useful, and where do they actually exist?

[NBVegita]

First we're arguing something that there is no factual evidence on. Even if the FBI presents a report, that is based on their analysis. Also note that being torture is "Internationally condemned" you will not find a credible source citing when/where torture has been useful because then International action HAS to be taken (due to Geneva convention violations). I say this is a similar metric as how they have stats of how many lives are taken by the use of guns, but there is no statistics to allocate how many lives were saved from the use of guns.

 

As such, I agree on some levels with what you've said above, and I disagree. First, "terrorists" have no problem using these tactics on our allies and have no commitment to the Geneva conventions. As such using the same tactics against them does not alter our ideal "war on terror". The reason why these people hate us has little to do with our interrogation tactics. In fact I don't think most of them could outline if we do or do not torture. Until we change the cultural view of the United States in these "terrorist" groups (due to warranted and propagandized actions), then we will always have the "war on terror".

 

On the scientific grounds, I do agree to a point. First depending on what you are doing to torture a person, they can lose sense and a lot of other actions (which is why torture although brutal, is a form of art (in a very crude way)). I say that in the sense that there is a very thin line to walk before it becomes useless.

 

As for the empirical, I would dare say that if enhanced interrogation is supposedly ineffective, then you need to completely eliminate the concept of interrogation. You've captured men who are not only completely prepared to die for their God and cause, but who have also been highly trained and harbor a hatred so deep for you that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to eliminate yours. These men have no problem killing men, women and children. They would just assume blow up a school bus as they would a tank. What can you honestly tell this man that is going to make him decide to give his secrets to you? The idea of death or prison does not scare him.

 

As we are arguing hypotheticals, I go back to the case that your prisoner will tell you anything you want to hear to stop the torture. Well a key that still allows torture to be effective is that you don't let your prisoner go after you torture him. If you're asking where is cell leader is and he tells you (A). You evaluate (A). If (A) was false, you begin torture again. Again there is an art to inflict pain without severe loss of mental capacity. Now what if he tells you the truth, but his cell has moved? Well no system is perfect by any means but in my opinion, you've got the chance to get information out of this man, where without "enhanced interrogation" you've got no chance.

 

For the ethical part, I am a very eye for an eye type of man. I believe that if you murder someone, you deserve to die. I believe that if you murder multiple people, you don't deserve to have rights we would accord to a normal human being as you took not only the rights of those people you killed, but their lives too. Ultimately these men get no empathy from me. Not to say there will not be innocents caught and tortured and possibly killed, but that is a casualty of war. You attempt to limit civilian casualties, but there will always be some casualties.

[»Lynx]

I've not read this thread in it's entirety as I can predict pretty much any pro-torture views, all I am going to say is anybody who thinks that torture is acceptable in any scenario without any kind of accountability is somebody who I am glad has no decision making power. Far too often humans put their emotions before rational decisions, far too often enough for me to believe torture is ever a pragmatic choice. On top of that, it's not even slightly irrational to believe that people will say anything when they're being tortured, just so they aren't tortured any further. You can argue that you can assess those answers, but it's not hard at all to waste your time long enough for any information to be irrelevant. Then of course, this whole system works off a 'guilty until proven innocent' ideology, and if you're an advocate of those kind of beliefs then I really do feel sorry for you.

 

Anything what somebody may say to justify torture is completely moot. I often hear people saying that the enemy would not show us mercy, and torture us. If your morals lead you to believe that it's okay to do something, just because the enemy is also doing it - I reiterate that I am glad you have no decision making power. Torture is unfortunately a sign that humans are in-fact just animals, and something that we should suppress as much as possible. I'd bet a pretty penny that if torture was on your doorstep, that if you had to witness it or even enforce it, there would be a clear (logical) majority vote that torture is completely wrong, and should be avoided at all costs. If you believe that you're wiser than the thousands of people before you who have condemned torture, then you're nothing short of a damn fool.

 

Also, who pays the price if the person really is innocent? What could you possibly give back to that person? Can you put a price on physical harm, or even worse - mental harm? Is the person who's torturing the victim accountable, are those who gave the orders? Who should be able to make these kind of decisions? Surely in order to torture somebody, you should be able to understand all of the negative consequences of torture... How can you ever assess something like that? How long should the person be held captive just because it's 'believed' that the person is involved in something? Literally thousands of moral questions arrise to me instantly questioning torture. The simple fact is that torture should never be present in any nation that supports civil liberties and human rights to it's people. If you're an advocate of torture, you're simply just as bad as those people you're fighting.

[Simulacrum]

First we're arguing something that there is no factual evidence on.

Yeah, no. I've cited plenty of evidence, and you've acknowledged it in the rest of your response. From the rest of your first paragraph, it's pretty clear that what you mean is that you have no factual evidence of torture being useful. Feel free, of course, to critique that evidence, but don't pretend that we're on equal footing in that regard.

 

As such, I agree on some levels with what you've said above, and I disagree. First, "terrorists" have no problem using these tactics on our allies and have no commitment to the Geneva conventions. As such using the same tactics against them does not alter our ideal "war on terror".

I'm not sure what the actions of other terrorists have to do with whether our actions might be terroristic in nature. Suppose that the United States engaged in actions that were unambiguously acts of terror — if we, say, sent a CIA team to blow up a hotel in Cairo. Would this not be a contribution to the methodology — terror — which we are supposed to be trying to stamp out? The actions of our enemies are simply irrelevant.

 

The reason why these people hate us has little to do with our interrogation tactics. ... Until we change the cultural view of the United States in these "terrorist" groups (due to warranted and propagandized actions), then we will always have the "war on terror".

And how do you propose to alter other cultures' perceptions of America without altering our own behavior?

 

On the scientific grounds, I do agree to a point. First depending on what you are doing to torture a person, they can lose sense and a lot of other actions (which is why torture although brutal, is a form of art (in a very crude way)). I say that in the sense that there is a very thin line to walk before it becomes useless.

A fine line indeed.

 

Are you familiar with the placebo effect? In medical experiments, it is always necessary to treat the placebo effect as zero. If a subject's condition improves under treatment, but not as much as under the placebo, this indicates that the treatment itself is hurting the patient.

 

I think that a similar principle applies to any hypothetical study of torture. Suppose that we can get accurate information 10% of the time with standard interrogation techniques, but only 3% of the time with torture. If torture is used, those 3% of cases do not show that torture worked. They simply show that the detrimental effects of torture were insufficient in those cases to offset the ordinary success rate of interrogation. Thus, it is not enough to show that torture "works" sometimes for it to actually be deemed useful. There needs to be a category of situations where we can expect a greater likelihood of success for torture than for other techniques to even begin justifying its use.

 

As for the empirical, I would dare say that if enhanced interrogation is supposedly ineffective, then you need to completely eliminate the concept of interrogation. You've captured men who are not only completely prepared to die for their God and cause, but who have also been highly trained and harbor a hatred so deep for you that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to eliminate yours. These men have no problem killing men, women and children. They would just assume blow up a school bus as they would a tank. What can you honestly tell this man that is going to make him decide to give his secrets to you? The idea of death or prison does not scare him.

You know what "empirical" means? You absolutely cannot invalidate the observation that torture is less effective than conventional interrogation by inventing hypotheses about why it shouldn't be more effective. We live in a world where conventional interrogation works better than torture; it's just unfortunate for your argument, I guess, that the humanist position is also the more strategic one.

 

For the ethical part...

Although Lynx has covered this quite well, there really should be no ethical part in a thread on the utility of torture.

[»Lynx]

For the ethical part...

Although Lynx has covered this quite well, there really should be no ethical part in a thread on the utility of torture.

 

Good point, although arguing torture will be no fun without juggling ethics. Take no notice of my post...

[NBVegita]

lol.

 

Yeah, no. I've cited plenty of evidence,

 

Please cite an impartial source if you can for your first source and one that cites sources of it's own.

"Scientists do not pretend to know, in any individual case, whether torture might extract useful information." From your second source, which I've said I agree with on the most part.

Your third source is an ex FBI interrogator, who is an anti-torture activist. I say that is one mans opinion. I'd like to see a published report is possible.

 

Would this not be a contribution to the methodology — terror — which we are supposed to be trying to stamp out?

 

Please cite where the use of torture makes you a terrorist. I also believe that sometimes in order to beat an enemy, you have to do things you may otherwise not do.

 

And how do you propose to alter other cultures' perceptions of America without altering our own behavior?

 

These countries don't hate us for torture (which has only recently come into light). They hate us for our political and militaristic actions of the past decades. If torture is done properly, no one will ever know it happened.

 

A fine line indeed.

 

That's like comparing apples to oranges. First with a patient you can actively assess their medical history and you are looking to cure a specific . With interrogation there is no way to limit the controls to an accurate level. Even trying to use environment and background history as a control is useless because there is only a very loose correlation.

 

We live in a world where conventional interrogation works better than torture;

 

Cite that. I also want you to cite where anyone, any where has been able to create a report showing the positive results of torture. Seriously, one things humans are, most notably when it comes to war is efficient. If torture was so ineffective then it would have been stamped out over the ages.

 

Again I challenge you to answer this question:

 

You've captured men who are not only completely prepared to die for their God and cause, but who have also been highly trained and harbor a hatred so deep for you that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to eliminate yours. These men have no problem killing men, women and children. They would just assume blow up a school bus as they would a tank. What can you honestly tell this man that is going to make him decide to give his secrets to you?

 

What is telling him the boogey man is gonna eat him gonna make him talk?

 

Just a few sources I can find quick:

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-30938320071211

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/justify/ (Interesting article of people from Harvard debating the use of torture)

 

I'm at work and it's hard to find sources because a lot of sources have been mysteriously "removed". Again it's a lot like global warming. There is a lot of evidence and a lot of people speaking out against man's influence in global warming, but they're getting harder to find.

 

For Lynx:

 

So to sum up your entire post:

 

"I think torture is morally wrong so anyone else who thinks different is simply wrong."

 

Sounds a bit Catholic to me.

 

I will go into dissecting everything you've posted, but only if you're willing to have a DISCUSSION on the topic. I'm not willing to waste my time arguing with a zealot who believes (at least in this issue) that anyone not taking your side is simply wrong.

[Simulacrum]

If torture is done properly, no one will ever know it happened. ... I'm at work and it's hard to find sources because a lot of sources have been mysteriously "removed". Again it's a lot like global warming. There is a lot of evidence and a lot of people speaking out against man's influence in global warming, but they're getting harder to find.

Wow.

[»Lynx]

For Lynx:

 

So to sum up your entire post:

 

"I think torture is morally wrong so anyone else who thinks different is simply wrong."

 

Sounds a bit Catholic to me.

 

I will go into dissecting everything you've posted, but only if you're willing to have a DISCUSSION on the topic. I'm not willing to waste my time arguing with a zealot who believes (at least in this issue) that anyone not taking your side is simply wrong.

 

Feel free to split the thread, and I'll happily talk about morals all day with you. It'll ultimately split out into our public liberties as a whole, then probably onto where the line of torture stops... Then no doubt will have some very partisan views but I'll still always stick by my opinion that if you think torture is just - then I am glad you do not have decision making power. Humans in general are far too emotional to be making on-the-spot decisions which can effectively ruin another persons whole life, on the gamble that they are in fact not innocent.

 

Thank goodness I am on my holidays and have a lot of free time...

[NBVegita]

Ah Lynx but I would dare say that if anything the use of torture would be the less emotional decision.

 

I will use an analogy.

 

Most police officers will tell you that they hope to never have to draw their weapon during their time of service. Yet if they are in a situation where drawing their weapon can help save their life, or the life of others, they will draw in a heart beat. That is because they can move their emotions to the side and do what they believe is necessary in the situation.

 

Now to relate that with torture. I don't believe these men, who order/condone torture (as a whole) enjoy the concept of torture. I don't believe they wake up and say "Man would I love to cause an immense amount of pain to another person today". Now I do agree that torture for revenge is simply not useful. Yet these people will do what they believe is necessary to protect lives.

 

Now the above is a personal belief of mine, but I personally believe that the point of torture is to gather information. If you are torturing a prisoner simply for the enjoyment you get out of seeing another human being writhing in pain, that is not acceptable in my opinion.