Torture doesn't work. Film at 11.

Remove all ads!

In the Republican Pork thread, Chandos brought up the point that anyone who criticized the previous administration's terrorism policies, particularly in regards to torture and detainment, were often branded as traitors, Defeatocrats, cut-and-runners, the "blame America first crowd," accused of giving "aid and comfort to our enemies," etc. Even by people on this very board. Keep this in mind as you read the following:

The entire article is worth a read. I can understand, however, if Obama using a teleprompter is a more fascinating subject.

 

Come on, he was a terrorist, an evildoer! Doesn't matter if it leads to information he had it coming anyways.

 

But it's so fffuuunnn!!

No, but seriously a view from the other side of the debate

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

 

Marty, you...you don't have an irony detector, do you?

Holy. ****.

 

Heheheh, there are 3 sentences I use to summarize the american mentality:

* "God bless America"

* "Kill the evil terrorists"

* "I'll use my creditcard"


Don't forget to use a nagging, whiny voice when you say it, guys

[Please read the forum rules sticky so that you don't make such blanket generalizations in the future (joking or not). Thank you. -Tal]

 

The problem is that torture does work. It's just not a reliable source of information. At some point the victim will say anything to stop the pain -- reason is gone and the threat of more pain later for lying doesn't even register. Some victims realize that telling the torturer what he or she wants to hear will work to stop the session.

However, it does get results from some victims. So it is viewed by some as a viable means to obtain information.

By the way, I never remember anyone questioning McCain's patriotism when he spoke out against the policy.

 

T2, you're exactly right, which is why any efficient system of employing torture will
1.) verify the identity and position of the subject before torture begins
2.) verify provided information before it is acted on.

Please not that the above is purely my efficient-system mindset at work and should not be taken as me condoning torture. At the same time, I do not outright condemn it, either. To be honest, I'm uncertain as to it's moral position in the case of a real war or threat of continued terrorist activity.

 

These strike me as contradicting statements, T2. If the purpose of torture is to pump the subject for actionable intelligence, and it doesn't provide that in any meaningful fashion, then I would think it categorically does NOT work. I've always seen torture as an exercise in fear, intimidation and/or retribution. Essentially, the point of torture is torture.

@ Nog,

I see where you're coming from, but I for one can outright condemn torture. Whether it pays intelligence dividends or not, we are better than that. If our ideals as a nation mean anything, then torture is beneath us. Especially when there are effective methods of information gathering that are far less morally questionable (though admittedly, less expedient) out there that we can employ and achieve better results.

 

Well, torture does work, and the point even doesn't have to be just "an exercise in fear, intimidation and/or retribution".

Torture and even mild continuous psychological and physical discomfort is the essential first step in brainwashing.

Not that brainwashing has anything to do with classified military operations. I'm quite sure that it has nothing to do with fighting a war against terror.

In any case, when a person's name is publicized, the person in question is not that useful as a brainwashed individual.

 

DR: They're not contradictory at all if you understand intelligence gathering. No human intelligent source is 100% reliable. Some sources are more reliable than others. We weed out the good info from the bad in the analysis process (which is based on many criteria). Torture is not reliable as an institution because we cannot tell the good information from the bad at first glance and analysis is difficult -- many victims are quite good at deception (or simply don't know). But occasionally good information can be obtained.

Torture is not about fear and intimidation -- those are tools of torture. Institutionalized torture is not about retribution -- such retaliation is simply abuse. Torture is the dismantling of a person's morals and loyalties. It is using pain (mental or physical) to shape thought processes and judgment.

Some people are more resistant to torture than others, just as some interrogators are more proficient than others. Hence, reliability of the information changes on a case-by-case basis.

By the way, I am completely against torture and do not believe we need it in our interrogation arsenal. Hypotheticals people use to justify such actions are fiction and have no place in an intelligent discussion.

 

So I take it you're not a fan of 24?

(I am, incidentally...it's entertainment.)

 

As in, it's entertainment, pure and simple. I disagree.

Look, I loves me some 300--it's so bad it's fantastic. But, y'know? The country would be a better place if it'd never been made.

 

No no AMaster, don't you know that post-modernism is something created by godless communists to undermine the moral clarity of the American people?

 

DR, you may find this disturbing, but I'm not particularly impressed with the ideals of our nation. Don't worry, I don't plan an overthrow. I generally consider our government to be one of, if not the, best in human history; but that's kind of like saying I'm eating one of, if not the, least rotten apples in the bushel of rotten apples. There's still room for improvement. That being said, I'm not at all sure that carefully and efficiently applied torture is against any of my ideals.

 

Then I, respectfully, can't help but call your commitment to your faith and identification as a devout Christian into question if that's how you really feel. I would think that if you of all people were opposed to torture on any grounds, it would be those. I really can't see how anyone can call themselves a Christian and find the torture of another human being acceptable for any reason.

I do find your lack of faith in our nation's ideals disturbing as well, if for no other reason than because your SP signature would suggest you hold them in high regard. It makes me think you haven't given much thought to that sig, or the man you're (sort of) quoting.*

* I've always thought your sig to be a misquote of Ben Franklin's famous "He who is willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

DR, you are wrong. My sig may be a quote of someone (I thought I had heard it somewhere), but it isn't Ben, and I have put a lot of thought into it. While the second part is perfectly in line with US ideals (give me Liberty or give me Death), the first part tends to be radically opposed to it. If a man is a slave, but is truely happy, he would be a fool to trade that happiness for liberty.

I would also like to ask exactly what part of the Bible you think goes against such use of torture? I'm not advocating torture for torture's sake, or for punishment, but as a way of obtaining information that will save the lives of hundreds, thousands, even millions of people. Christ says to love your enemy, and to love your neighbor as yourself, but what happens when the 'love*' of one contradicts the 'love*' of the other? Am I to 'love*' my neighbor the terrorist and let him go, or even just detain him but nothing else, or my neighbor the bank teller, who will die in a terrorist plot if I do not torture my neighbor the terrorist? In such dillemas, I tend to favor the one not currently engaged in wrongdoing.

*'love' here is used in the common American sense of being nice to, not in the truely Biblical sense which would, at the least, command me to oppose the terrorist in speech if not in actions.

Many people take the Bible to mean 'all love all the time, and always be nice to everyone', but it doesn't. The Bible does not oppose war at all, it simply describes appropriate motives for war, or violence of any kind. Was the war in Iraq justifiable under the Bible? I think so, because of the terrible conditions Saddam forced on his people. Was the war in Afghanastan? I think so, because the organization we opposed there had attacked us. Was the war in Vietnam way back when? No. They had not attacked us, they did not actually threaten us in anything more than a potential ideology conflict.

Do I regret the occasional usefulness of torture? Yes, but I also regret the occasional need for war, for punishing criminals, and the overall fact that we exist in a fallen and imperfect world. That won't make them go away, or change how useful/necessary/unavoidable they are.

 

That may save hundreds of lives - not will. That's the problem with torture - you never know what the other person knows or if what they DO know will prove useful. It is NEVER a guarantee of anything except the crossing of a moral line. Even in the extremely-unlikely 24-ish "ticking timebomb" scenario often used to justify torture, it's an extremely mixed bag. In fact, if I were a fanatical terrorist and I knew the clock was ticking, I would be more likely to lie, mislead or simply hold out, no matter how intense the torture. It would ensure the success of my mission.

Torture is an "ends justify the means" kind of thing. Do you believe in that? Because if I recall, the bible states in several places that setting aside a principal or ideal to achieve any goal is to give into pride and self-righteousness. Romans 3:8 states We are not to do evil that good may come. So I would think the bible is for the most part pretty clear that committing evil even to prevent further evil is morally unjustified. Proverbs 4:23 states Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life; which I take to mean that once you accept the doing of wrong for any reason, it just opens the door for more frequent and severe wrongdoing to follow. Ideals only mean something if you stick to them when it is inconvenient, even if you may feel that lives are on the line, and especially when there are other tactics available for intelligence gathering besides torture.

 

NOG, you are basing this argument on a very tricky foundation. Just how useful is torture? The source article itself casts a lot of doubt on the premise that torture has been efficient, and it's hardly the first piece to do so. Is torture worth it if it only provided useful information in 20%? In 10%? What about all the other times, four out of five or nine out of ten, when it didn't - when the only thing America got out of it is incorrect information, wasted time, tarnished honor and international infamy? Everything has a cost, and the cost of torture - while hard to measure in dollars or lives - is there, nonetheless. Yet it is usually ignored by the proponents of the idea that torture is necessary - it's much better to present something as a necessary evil than to have to defend its necessity, especially when it comes at a cost. Yes, it can work in reverse, too - but the actual usefulness of torture is no less hard to define.

As for the Bible and war, it might be time for me to read the book again, but for me the most important message it has is this: blessed be the peacemakers. Iraq was not a necessary war in that Iraq had no capacities to harm the US (at least no more than 10 other countries that were not invaded), and few things made it as loathsome to me as the way Bush and co went around saying how they want a peaceful solution more than everything, then shut the door for the UN commission when it could jeopardize their rationale for war.

 

Stangely, I think I have heard it before as well. While I cannot be absolutely certain, I think it comes as a quotation for a discovered technology from one of the myriad Civilization games that Sid Meier has produced over the years. Or maybe I'm confusing that quote with DR's: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both". Maybe that's what's in the civ game and not NOG's quote. Sorry for interupting the debate.

 

It's more than that, though. It's quite well established that torture is far more likely to cause you to waste resources following false leads than it is to lead to legitimate, actionable intelligence. Our resources are finite, and we could be directing them to far more successful pursuits. The bottom line is that you are far more likely to get good information from a "friendly hostile" than from a "hostile hostile".