John Oliver discusses torture

[sunmaster14]

Well that's the nub. By all accounts it's not necessary because it doesn't work.

By the self-serving accounts of politicians like Diane Feinstein, it didn't work. And, yet, when you read between the lines, you see strong evidence that it did work. Perhaps there wasn't any obvious success in disrupting an actual active plot, but it almost certainly contributed to the fight against al Qaeda. KSM simply refused to talk before he was tortured. Afterwards he did. Some of the things he said turned out to be false. Other things he said turned out to be true and helpful in tracking down other members of al Qaeda. How is that not better than his continued silence?

 

[shuttlt]

I'm glad others are willing to do it, because I couldn't.

I kind of wonder whether the people who end up doing the torturing are really the people you'd want to have doing the torturing. Is it all NCIS, or is it former chicken factory workers and the like? I haven't read the reports, it's an honest question. My thought is that it's the kind of task anyone with any authority, a brain and a desire to cover their ass would want to delegate.

 

[The Don]

By the self-serving accounts of politicians like Diane Feinstein, it didn't work. And, yet, when you read between the lines, you see strong evidence that it did work. Perhaps there wasn't any obvious success in disrupting an actual active plot, but it almost certainly contributed to the fight against al Qaeda. KSM simply refused to talk before he was tortured. Afterwards he did. Some of the things he said turned out to be false. Other things he said turned out to be true and helpful in tracking down other members of al Qaeda. How is that not better than his continued silence?

Upchurch covers it nicely in the post prior to yours.

Oh, it can work. It's just far less efficient than more conventional forms of interrogation.

Torture is good for when you need unreliable information and you don't care how long it takes to get it. Or if you just like hurting people*. It's good for that, too.

 

[Upchurch]

And, yet, when you read between the lines, you see strong evidence that it did work. Perhaps there wasn't any obvious success in disrupting an actual active plot, but it almost certainly contributed to the fight against al Qaeda.

The more I read this, the more hilarious it is. "read between the lines" but it's strong evidence? There is "strong evidence" but no obvious success?

This is just word salad. Hilarious, but still word salad.

 

[marplots]

Getting people to talk isn't the issue. Telling the good information from the bad is the problem.

Torture isn't designed to get the truth from someone. It's designed to get someone to tell the torturer what they want to hear to stop the torturer.

One assumes the tortured has some idea of what the torturer wants to hear, and the torturer has some idea as well.

"I want to hear about other members of your gang."

 

[TragicMonkey]

The other purpose of torture is intimidation. Of the victim, of other potential victims, of a whole population. If you know your enemy is fond of torture, it will affect your behavior. Positively or negatively, of course, from either perspective. For example, you might choose to fight to the death or suicide rather than be captured alive by a torturing enemy. Or you might choose to fight them in the first place because their torturing is proof they are evil.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Well that's the nub. By all accounts it's not necessary because it doesn't work.

Asserting that torture doesn't work is as silly as asserting that simply asking in a friendly manner doesn't work, or asserting that simply threatening a prisoner with torture doesn't work.

I'm sure all three of those methods work.

 

[sunmaster14]

Upchurch covers it nicely in the post prior to yours.

No he doesn't. Upchurch has consistently asserted that there are always interrogation methods which work better than torture, but he has never supported that assertion with any evidence or logic. If KSM refuses to talk to an interrogator, no matter how many promises you make that you'll give his children an education if he does (example from John Oliver's segment for those who didn't actually watch it), then how can you make progress? In past debates, Upchurch has even refused to admit that conventional interrogation uses a reward and punishment system to obtain compliance. Probably because he realizes that the lines between conventional methods and torture are actually blurred.

 

[Upchurch]

For those interested, here is one of the more lengthy previous threads on torture. These were a lot of source links on this page on why torture is not the best way to gather information including, interestingly enough, The Game Theory Case Against Torture.

So, it's really a poor way to get information, but yeah, it's necessary because reasons.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I kind of wonder whether the people who end up doing the torturing are really the people you'd want to have doing the torturing. Is it all NCIS, or is it former chicken factory workers and the like? I haven't read the reports, it's an honest question. My thought is that it's the kind of task anyone with any authority, a brain and a desire to cover their ass would want to delegate.

That's another kettle of fish!
I ain't the type, and don't know anyone who is, although I have several ex military friends. They too have said they're not the type. Comes down to a question of sleeping at night, living with oneself.

I can see a facilitator who uses torture to gain information and still lies awake at night having moral troubles with it. The process is surely unpleasant for all involved.

 

[Upchurch]

No he doesn't. Upchurch has consistently asserted that there are always interrogation methods which work better than torture, but he has never supported that assertion with any evidence or logic.

Ha. I just posted a link to a thread where I not only did that (both science and logic), but where you responded so we know you saw it six months ago.

 

[sunmaster14]

Ha. I just posted a link to a thread where I not only did that (both science and logic), but where you responded so we know you saw it six months ago.

Well, of course I disagreed that your evidence was evidence and that your logic was logic. Wasn't there another thread too? The Condi Rice one I think. That was more extensive actually.

 

[DavidJames]

For those keeping score.

Upchurch post evidence
sunmaster14 reads between the lines

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think this is a very good example. Surely most of the time one doesn't have an immediate way of verifying the story... hence in the short term the torture stops regardless of the truth? Secondly, isn't there a risk of some kind of brutal version of clever hands here if the torturer does already have an idea of what the torturee is supposed to be hiding?

I'll assume you meant Clever Hans. But no, I don't think the risk is that big, if you're careful about the kinds of questions you ask (ie, don't ask them to confirm anything).

The other thing is that you're assuming a rather unsophisticated use of torture, but that's not a good assumption. If I was tasked with interrogating someone with torture, I would not ask the unknown questions first. Start out with really simple stuff, stuff that's maybe not even important, which we already know and they may even know that we know (what's your name? Where were you born? etc, etc). But demand the answers anyways, and apply torture if the correct answers aren't given. Then start moving on to more serious stuff, but which we already know the answer to. Stuff which would be valuable to us if we didn't already know it. Again, apply torture if the correct answers are not given. Establish a pattern of getting true answers from them before moving on to questions that we don't know the answer to. And even then, intersperse it with questions that we already know the answer to, and also repeat questions to check for consistency in answers. The point would be to get them in the habit of giving true answers, AND not let them know if a question we're asking is one we don't know the answer to, so they won't know when it's safe to lie.

 

[shuttlt]

That's another kettle of fish!
I ain't the type, and don't know anyone who is, although I have several ex military friends. They too have said they're not the type. Comes down to a question of sleeping at night, living with oneself.

I can see a facilitator who uses torture to gain information and still lies awake at night having moral troubles with it. The process is surely unpleasant for all involved.

Forget morality and sleeping at night, would being asked to go torture a bunch of people not scream "I may be having to answer a lot of difficult questions if the political wind changes and this is ever investigated".

 

[shuttlt]

I'll assume you meant Clever Hans. But no, I don't think the risk is that big, if you're careful about the kinds of questions you ask (ie, don't ask them to confirm anything).

I know it's hans, my damn hands don't know though. Damn!

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, it can work. It's just far less efficient than more conventional forms of interrogation.

You have no evidence of that. Now, I happen to think we should not try to acquire evidence of that (and I hope you can figure out why), but nonetheless, you're simply making an assumption.

 

[shuttlt]

The other thing is that you're assuming a rather unsophisticated use of torture, but that's not a good assumption. If I was tasked with interrogating someone with torture, I would not ask the unknown questions first. Start out with really simple stuff, stuff that's maybe not even important, which we already know and they may even know that we know (what's your name? Where were you born? etc, etc). But demand the answers anyways, and apply torture if the correct answers aren't given. Then start moving on to more serious stuff, but which we already know the answer to. Stuff which would be valuable to us if we didn't already know it. Again, apply torture if the correct answers are not given. Establish a pattern of getting true answers from them before moving on to questions that we don't know the answer to. And even then, intersperse it with questions that we already know the answer to, and also repeat questions to check for consistency in answers. The point would be to get them in the habit of giving true answers, AND not let them know if a question we're asking is one we don't know the answer to, so they won't know when it's safe to lie.

But I thought a lot of the information that came out of the torture turned out to be incorrect.... black Muslim terrorists in Montana was one, wasn't it? The way you describe it, it sounds like it would be fairly reliable.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know it's hans, my damn hands don't know though. Damn!

You should have said "I know it's hands, my damn hans don't know though."

 

[shuttlt]

You should have said "I know it's hands, my damn hans don't know though."

It's your fault, you should have given me more feedback.