Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Olowkow]

The question of whether or not torture works is similar to asking whether germ warfare or poison/nerve gas munitions are effective. It's a moot point, since they are all outlawed by the laws of human decency.

 

[Olowkow]

Seems it's good to be the President.

Sure beats assassinations as the alternative.

 

[Upchurch]

The question of whether or not torture works is similar to asking whether germ warfare or poison/nerve gas munitions are effective. It's a moot point, since they are all outlawed by the laws of human decency.

And by regular laws, as well.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Do you have any evidence for this (I haven't seen any, and I've looked) or is this just wishful thinking to make the spectre of torture in your name more palatable?

I would like to second this request.

Torture is something that has existed about as long as recorded history. I am unaware of a single documented instance of it producing reliable information, and I have checked.

Relying on torture to find the ticking time bomb makes about as much sense as using a rain dance to save a burning building.

 

[sunmaster14]

So the thousands who confessed to being witches after being tortured really were witches then?

This isn't about confessions. It's about information whose veracity can be independently verified. It's actually a tautology that information which cannot be verified has no value. That's an important point. Please let me know if you need further explication.

Almost anybody will talk. They will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, not including the truth.

FTFY.

Why would an enemy need to be tortured to give you false information? Why wouldn't he be willing to give it freely, if it will waste your resources?

 

[I Am The Scum]

This isn't about confessions. It's about information whose veracity can be independently verified. It's actually a tautology that information which cannot be verified has no value. That's an important point. Please let me know if you need further explication.



FTFY.

Why would an enemy need to be tortured to give you false information? Why wouldn't he be willing to give it freely, if it will waste your resources?

Are you going to offer anything more than hypotheticals?

 

[Upchurch]

Why would an enemy need to be tortured to give you false information?

To. Make. The. Torture. Stop.

I don't know how to put it more plainly.

 

[jimbob]

This isn't about confessions. It's about information whose veracity can be independently verified. It's actually a tautology that information which cannot be verified has no value. That's an important point. Please let me know if you need further explication.



FTFY.

Why would an enemy need to be tortured to give you false information? Why wouldn't he be willing to give it freely, if it will waste your resources?

I really don't follow what you are saying. If the information can be independently verified, then you don't need to torture someone. If it can't then it is no good. The fact is that people who confessed to being witches knew that they were dooming themselves to a painful death, and often that their families would lose any wealth that they had built up. They still did it.

As to your second paragraph: I don't understand - someone doesn't initially talk, then they start saying anything to get the torture to stop. Also a significant fraction (upthread I think a figure of 20%) of the detainees were innocent and knew nothing.

We also have the case of at least one Al Quaeda prisoner who had been cooperating with an FBI interrogator and who after being taken by the CIA, became "unresponsive". That was an own goal on all levels.

 

[sunmaster14]

Are you going to offer anything more than hypotheticals?

I can only offer logic and can only appeal to introspection and experience. There's no data to go on. If you actually do a search for effectiveness of torture, all you find are unsupported assertions from so-called experts who are suffering from wishful thinking. It would certainly be very convenient for professional interrogators if it were true that torture never worked.

 

[3point14]

I can only offer logic and can only appeal to introspection and experience. There's no data to go on. If you actually do a search for effectiveness of torture, all you find are unsupported assertions from so-called experts who are suffering from wishful thinking. It would certainly be very convenient for professional interrogators if it were true that torture never worked.

I think that before you even begin to consider advocating that which is banned under international law you have to have a much better argument than that used by theists to allow them to still believe in god.

 

[jimbob]

Sunmaster, are you in favour of the second ammendment?

 

[Upchurch]

I can only offer logic and can only appeal to introspection and experience. There's no data to go on.

Logic requires some basis to build upon. "Introspection and experience" is really no better than your early appeals to "common sense".

Your claims continue to have no support.

If you actually do a search for effectiveness of torture, all you find are unsupported assertions from so-called experts who are suffering from wishful thinking.

Your arguments on this topic have been nothing but wishful thinking; an assertion of belief without evidence.

It would certainly be very convenient for professional interrogators if it were true that torture never worked.

Why?

 

[sunmaster14]

I really don't follow what you are saying. If the information can be independently verified, then you don't need to torture someone. If it can't then it is no good. The fact is that people who confessed to being witches knew that they were dooming themselves to a painful death, and often that their families would lose any wealth that they had built up. They still did it.

A bit of information is either true, or it is false. If it is true and it is useful, then, by definition, it is verifiable. Its very usefulness, e.g. in tracking down a criminal or finding a hidden cache or in decrypting a computer file, is self-verifying. If a bit of information cannot in theory be verified, then there is no conceivable useful purpose to which it could have been put. A prisoner's confession that he is a witch, or, more plausibly, that he believes in God, or that he likes cranberry juice is unverifiable and therefore useless. It's a bit different if he confesses to a crime but claims that he had no accomplices. That is verifiable, but it is similar to proving a negative, so that it requires more work and may in fact be close to useless in practice. If he claims to have accomplices, then those accomplices can be picked up and their stories checked out. That is both verifiable, and, if true, useful.

As to your second paragraph: I don't understand - someone doesn't initially talk, then they start saying anything to get the torture to stop. Also a significant fraction (upthread I think a figure of 20%) of the detainees were innocent and knew nothing.

My point is that if the prisoner knows the truth, then the truth will come out. There may be a lot of false stuff too, but (truth plus falsehood) >= nothing and is strictly greater than nothing in most cases. The idea that eliciting falsehoods is somehow a huge negative is nonsense. The interrogators always have the option of expending zero resources on any of the information that comes out.

Also, if falsehoods were such a waste of resources, then presumably an enemy prisoner would be trying to utter falsehoods anyway. It's not so easy to tell lies in a consistent way, though. Especially when you don't know what information the interrogators already have.

We also have the case of at least one Al Quaeda prisoner who had been cooperating with an FBI interrogator and who after being taken by the CIA, became "unresponsive". That was an own goal on all levels.

Yes, well, that would be a disastrous result. However, the FBI and CIA are rivals, and they hate each other, so I'd treat such claims by FBI interrogators with a good deal of skepticism.

 

[sunmaster14]

I think that before you even begin to consider advocating that which is banned under international law you have to have a much better argument than that used by theists to allow them to still believe in god.

First of all, I'm not advocating the use of torture in general or in any specific real-world case. I'm only claiming that I expect that torture "works," and that there are plausible hypotheticals where it may be justified. I have also argued that inhumane treatment lies on a continuum, so it is important not to get carried away with conflating milder forms of torture with more extreme forms, or, in the other direction, believing that treatment which falls short of torture (according to most people's definitions) is magically ok.

 

[Praktik]

So when are we going to see the prosecutions for torture that America must enact as part of its responsibilities under the Convention Against Torture signed by Saint Reagan?

After all that is America's duty under the treaty - so I can only imagine the wheels are in motion to fulfil this obligation, given how loudly America has proclaimed the sanctity of international law in decades past...

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster, are you in favour of the second ammendment?

Yes, I am, and I am now also waiting eagerly to find out how you can tie this back into the discussion.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, I am, and I am now also waiting eagerly to find out how you can tie this back into the discussion.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security will find themselves losing both"

I find it ironic that you defend something that in today's world would be ineffective at preserving freedom whilst condoning something that definitely harms it. In a free society, operatives of the state should not be above the law. The CIA's actions were against US law.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Why?

Torture is morally repugnant. It would be a terrible moral dilemma to be faced with a choice of torturing a prisoner on the one hand and letting innocent people die on the other. I know, I know. You think this could never happen. Which is very convenient for you.

 

[Crossbow]

Torture is very good at producing volumes of information and a very good way for the captors to show their dominance of the detainees, however torture is very poor way to obtain useful information that cannot be obtained otherwise.

For example, the Israelis have been using torture for many years now as an anti-terrorism tool and even though Israel has endured many acts of terrorism, and yet there is not even one case where such an act has been stopped by using torture.

The real problem in using torture to get useful information is that by the time the person is apprehended, the torture squad is ready to go, and the time it takes to extract the information, then in almost every case the information that is obtained:

is out-of-date,

or is already known from other sources,

or is obsolete because the organization being investigated simply changes its plans,

or are lies told by the person being tortured in order to get the torture to stop,

or some combination of the above.

Meanwhile, the organization doing the torture has to carefully review all of the information collected and deal with the downsides of having torturers in their organization.

TV shows and movies often show torture is very good at getting critical data that cannot be obtained otherwise, however the reality of the situation is quite different indeed.

As for legalities of the USA torture program, I do not expect anyone to be criminally charged since it can be accurately claimed that the torture program was ordered by former President George W. Bush and it was approved by former Attorney General Gonzales.

 

[Upchurch]

First of all, I'm not advocating the use of torture in general or in any specific real-world case.

Not any specific real-world case?

Personally, I do not want such techniques (and some of them do qualify as torture in my mind) used except in the most extreme circumstances (i.e. the ticking time bomb scenario).

What possible real-world "most extreme" case, are you you advocating the use of torture for, then?

I'm only claiming that I expect that torture "works," and that there are plausible hypotheticals where it may be justified.

You have not presented these plausible hypotheticals. Every hypothetical you've presented included an assumed requirement that only torture could retrieve the information needed. Aside from rendering the hypothetical implausible, it's begging the question.

Could you please present, or point to, this plausible hypothetical situation where torture would be justified?