Jesse Ventura says water boarding is indeed torture

[Tony Stark]

What do you mean by "effective", then?

It is unlikely to result in useful information and very likely to result in stories that were made up to stop the torture.

Regular interrogations produce better results.

Again, this isn't an opinion. The CIA ran a torture program and it was basically useless, even counterproductive while useful information was gained through normal interrogation methods.

 

[Pacal]

And? It changes nothing of what I'm saying. Torture has been used on hardened combattants and spies but also on innocent civilians and crooked politicians throughout history. Pointing out that it probably won't work against hardened spies doesn't mean it won't work against the other groups.



Perhaps you missed it but I gave an example. Because apparently no one can look this stuff up by themselves.

Your missing one of the points Torture is very good at getting the victims to tell the torturer what the torturer wants to hear. That is not necessarily the truth. For example if torturers tortured a completely innocent person who was not involved in a terrorist act. I have little doubt that torture will produce a confession of involvement in terrorism by that person. The same is true in the case of torturing someone who is involved in terrorist acts and whom the torturers are convinced knows X. Only this terrorist doesn't know X. Guess what I have little doubt this terrorist will confess to knowing X and give X only it is completely made up to stop the torture.

The result is that the use of torture has frequently flooded the torturer with a sea of crap information from the victims of torture with the true information sort of lost in it and hard to distinguish from the crap. To give a real world example during the horrific purges in Russia during the purges. The authorities, including Stalin, seemed to genuinely believe that a vast conspiracy to over throw and subvert the government. Via torture, threats to self and family they elicited acres and acres of detailed confessions. It was all crap elicited out of terrified people. I just don't see how recent efforts that involve the use of torture have safeguards to prevent the generation of crap information in large quantities. I could also give the example of Argentina's Dirty War.

Of course torture sometimes work, but then all sorts of dubious crap also sometimes works. The point is torture has a vast potential to generate crap information in huge amounts and historically it has from all appearances never failed to do so. So I would rate the effectiveness of torture in terms of generating useful information has very low.

 

[Beerina]

DAMMIT! Now I am 147% sure this guy died a couple of years ago. Who the hell brought him back to life?


Very drunk, I laughed for 45 minutes the night he was elected governor of Minnesota. Good times.

 

[Lithrael]

The Gunpowder Plot? As in the Guy Fawkes thing? As in 1605? After the plot itself was foiled and they wanted detailed confessions? I thought getting confessions out of people was the bit that torture is acknowledged to be good for. Presumably some of the other conspirators were named? How do we know how much of this was truthful? I don't know anything like enough about what information they got through torture and how useful/true it was, to know how much weight to give this four hundred year old example.

Have you got any others?

 

[Ziggurat]

Moral arguments aren't arguments from fact, but from emotion.

No, that's not a fair characterization. They are arguments from axioms. People can and often do get very emotional about those axioms, but it's not actually a requirement for a moral argument. But all morals ultimately rest on axioms, and we don't all share the same moral axioms. So in that sense, they're irrefutable: you can't refute an axiom. But you can reject it.

 

[theprestige]

It is a fact that torture isn't an effective form of interrogation. The CIA tried it not too long ago. The program was a failure.

You're asking us to assume that the CIA are so competent at their job that their results are meaningful. You're also asking us to assume we have enough data about the CIA's work to make an informed assessment of their results. Neither of those assumptions seem warranted, to me.

 

[Tony Stark]

You're asking us to assume that the CIA are so competent at their job that their results are meaningful.

Ah, so the problem with the CIA's illegal torture program was that the CIA wasn't competent at torturing people. Next time they need to find competent torturers. Surely that will fix the problem. Except for the problem is that torture doesn't work, and so there is no such thing as a competent torturer.

You're also asking us to assume we have enough data about the CIA's work to make an informed assessment of their results. Neither of those assumptions seem warranted, to me.

The Senate did an investigation on it and released a report. There was dissent from Republicans but that's to be expected. They don't want to admit that a Republican administration's criminal torture program didn't work.

What would be surprising is if the CIA's criminal torture program did work. Torture has never been effective. Hell the CIA itself used torture in Vietnam. Didn't work.

In the wake of the Senate report cataloging a whole lot of torture committed by the CIA, Dick Cheney has been reduced to arguing that torturing people — even innocent ones — is worth doing if you eventually get good results. The ends justify the means.

I can see why he makes this argument — he's simply got no other option. It is now obvious that what the CIA did was illegal, brutal torture. Claims that it kept the nation safe are all that Cheney has left.

But Cheney is wrong: Torture doesn't work and never has.

I have referenced the work Torture and Democracy, by Darius Rejali of Reed College, many times in the past. It is widely agreed to be a benchmark work on torture — perhaps the most thorough investigation and analysis of the subject available. Here's what Rejali says, to put this question to rest for all time.

Over 12 years of research, Rejali examined the use of torture in the U.S., Great Britain, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, South Vietnam, and Korea. He looked at torture inflicted during the French-Algerian War, as well as at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay. His research found that there is no record of any successful use of torture to gather intelligence, not even in totalitarian states.

http://theweek.com/articles/441396/why-torture-doesnt-work-definitive-guide

 

[Belz...]

It is unlikely to result in useful information and very likely to result in stories that were made up to stop the torture.

How likely?

Your missing one of the points Torture is very good at getting the victims to tell the torturer what the torturer wants to hear. That is not necessarily the truth.

I'm not missing that at all. I'm very well aware of this. Why do you think I'm missing this?

No, that's not a fair characterization. They are arguments from axioms. People can and often do get very emotional about those axioms, but it's not actually a requirement for a moral argument.

Of course they are. Morality is based on what we think is right or wrong, which is based on our values, which is based on how we respond to various events. Yeah, it's emotional alright. That doesn't make it "bad". It's entirely natural.

 

[Belz...]

The Gunpowder Plot? As in the Guy Fawkes thing? As in 1605?

I was asked for real-life examples. Now it doesn't work because it's from the 17th century? Well, I'm sorry but we don't tend to torture much anymore so obviously my examples will be a bit old.

After the plot itself was foiled and they wanted detailed confessions? I thought getting confessions out of people was the bit that torture is acknowledged to be good for. Presumably some of the other conspirators were named? How do we know how much of this was truthful?

They actually caught all the conspirators and got a full, consistent account of what happened. I'd say it was successful.

Have you got any others?

Why? Are you planning on dismissing all of them in sequence? The point is that torture sometimes works. You're all reacting as if that means I think it's moral. It isn't.

 

[3point14]

They actually caught all the conspirators and got a full, consistent account of what happened. I'd say it was successful.

Can you show where you have this information from.

All I can find is that he was tortured, confessed and gave up the names of his co-conspirators. none of this indicates the usefulness of torture, the documentation, understandably, is crap. We know he confessed, we don't know if the names of his co-conspirators are something he gave up under torture or merely establishment suspicions that he was forced to confirm.

I'm afraid I too reject this as evidence that torture works. do you have anything with better documentation or more recent. One example, some 400 years ago with, as far as I can find, only the vaguest documentation, is not going to convince me, I'm afraid.

I am open to the argument, I simply don't accept that the evidence you've presented supports your argument in any reliable way.

 

[Belz...]

Can you show where you have this information from.

All I can find is that he was tortured, confessed and gave up the names of his co-conspirators. none of this indicates the usefulness of torture, the documentation, understandably, is crap. We know he confessed, we don't know if the names of his co-conspirators are something he gave up under torture or merely establishment suspicions that he was forced to confirm.

And what's the difference? You admit he was tortured and gave reliable information, but are desperately trying to find a way to ignore this. Why?

I'm afraid I too reject this as evidence that torture works.

Why? Merely being morally opposed to torture isn't enough.

I have a nagging impression that no matter how many examples I find, they will be rejected because torture is apalling.

 

[3point14]

And what's the difference? You admit he was tortured and gave reliable information, but are desperately trying to find a way to ignore this. Why?

No, I admit he was tortured and gave up the names of his co-conspirators. There's no mention in any of the documention I can find that indicates he wasn't fed these names as a 'sell ouot these people and we'll stop hurting you' sort of a way.

Now, if you had any other instances of successful torture then this one we're discussing might be corroboration, but, as you haven't, I am not going to take one, undocumented, four-hundred year old example as evidence at all.

If you are so sure it works, surely you can find another, better supported instance.

My point still stands, this single data point is neither well documented or, incidentally, statistically significant enough to demonstrate your argument.

Why? Merely being morally opposed to torture isn't enough.

Nothing to do with being good enough or otherwise, it's to do with your, in my opinion, insufficiently supported claim that torture works sometimes. I do not think you have validated your claim in any way sufficiently to convince me and your paucity of example strengthens my belief that what you claim has not been proved.

I have a nagging impression that no matter how many examples I find, they will be rejected because torture is apalling.

So far you've found one poor example. Find one that's reasonably documented or another few with this level of documentation and I'll read the evidence. At the moment, you've produced one poor example and you're now using my rejection of that as some sort of predictor that I'll reject them all which is not at all true and I will demonstrate that once you come up with one or more further examples.

 

[Belz...]

No, I admit he was tortured and gave up the names of his co-conspirators. There's no mention in any of the documention I can find that indicates he wasn't fed these names as a 'sell ouot these people and we'll stop hurting you' sort of a way.

Ok so you're therefore saying that you don't think those people were the actual co-conspirators?

If you are so sure it works, surely you can find another, better supported instance.

I was asked for a real-life example and I provided one. I think we all have the ability to look these things up, and as it seems that no amount of examples by me will be accepted, I'm not going to continue spoon-feeding you.

So far you've found one poor example.

You have not explained why it's poor except that it's old, as if that somehow makes it irrelevant, and "poorly documented", which is odd considering the information we do have.

 

[TraneWreck]

DAMMIT! Now I am 147% sure this guy died a couple of years ago. Who the hell brought him back to life?

Very drunk, I laughed for 45 minutes the night he was elected governor of Minnesota. Good times.

One of the great facts of 20th century America is that two state governors starred in Predator.

 

[Belz...]

One of the great facts of 20th century America is that two state governors starred in Predator.

The most manly movie ever.

 

[3point14]

Ok so you're therefore saying that you don't think those people were the actual co-conspirators?

No, I'm saying there's no evidence at all that this was an instance of torture to obtain information not already known rather than an instance of torture that successfully got the victim just to say the names written on the piece of paper in front of him

I was asked for a real-life example and I provided one. I think we all have the ability to look these things up, and as it seems that no amount of examples by me will be accepted, I'm not going to continue spoon-feeding you.

I've looked. I looked up the torture of Fawkes and discovered it was poor evidence. What do you mean 'no amount of examples'? You've supplied exactly one. If torture is as effective as you think it is then there must, surely be more. If there aren't then isn't that an indication that you maybe should start to question your conclusion?

You have not explained why it's poor except that it's old, as if that somehow makes it irrelevant, and "poorly documented", which is odd considering the information we do have.

It's old, and all I can find is that he gave up the names of his co-conspirators. given the nature of politics at the time and the fact that this is the only example of torture working that you can come up with, Occam's razor would suggest that it is more likely in this instance that Fawkes was tortured to say what he was told to say rather than him providing any evidence that was previously unknown.

Once again, you have produced one example which is tremendously weak evidence both in volume and in quality. Failing other examples, which will be subject to scrutiny but not instantly dismissed, I reject your hypothesis.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm saying there's no evidence at all that this was an instance of torture to obtain information not already known rather than an instance of torture that successfully got the victim just to say the names written on the piece of paper in front of him

How is that relevant? The point is that torture can yield true information, whether or not the torturer knows that information beforehand.

What do you mean 'no amount of examples'? You've supplied exactly one.

I supplied one off the top of my head because I was asked for one. But seeing how it was dismissed I don't have much confidence that _any_ example would satisfy you, hence my comment.

 

[3point14]

How is that relevant? The point is that torture can yield true information, whether or not the torturer knows that information beforehand.

There's a great deal of difference between 'name these people as conspirators and we'll stop hurting you' and 'What are the names of the people we don't know you were associating with. One is simply hurting someone until they say what you want, the other is actually obtaining new, reliable information as a result of torture. In the absence of any other instances of torture being used to collect new, reliable information, Occam's razor suggest the former.

I supplied one off the top of my head because I was asked for one. But seeing how it was dismissed I don't have much confidence that _any_ example would satisfy you, hence my comment.

Well, at the risk of sounding a little trite, why don't you do that and find out. Your reluctance to do so, I'm afraid, leads me to believe that you, like I, have looked and can't find any and you're now fighting a backwards battle against your own cognitive dissonance.


Rather than stating that examples you haven't presented will be rejected, why not simply supply them and see what happens?

If you can't then, as I say, I think you need to revisit your own conclusions.

 

[Crossbow]

... snipped for relevance ...

Ok. The co-conspirators in the gunpowder plot gave consistent and accurate accounts of the conspiracy. Hell, in most cases the mere threat of torture was enough.

... snipped for relevance ...

Thanks for the thought, but I would have to say that this case actually supports my argument.

In this case the torture applied to the gunpowder plot was done after the gunpowder plot was discovered and one of the people involved was caught.

The use of torture did not help the authorities discover the plot in advance.

 

[Belz...]

There's a great deal of difference between 'name these people as conspirators and we'll stop hurting you' and 'What are the names of the people we don't know you were associating with.

Sure, but now you seem to be assuming, without any evidence, that this is what happened. And you're saying that _my_ information is poor?

Rather than stating that examples you haven't presented will be rejected, why not simply supply them and see what happens?

Because I have the nagging impression that I'll be wasting my time, something I'm not particularily fond of doing. But if it'll make you feel better because you can't bother to do it yourself, I'll look it up when I have more time later today.