Jesse Ventura says water boarding is indeed torture

[TraneWreck]

You don't know if any information obtained by any interrogation method is true until you confirm it by other means. And for a lot of information, confirming it by other means is much, much easier than discovering it by other means.

True, but the problem with torture is two-fold:

1) It has been shown to be much less effective at obtaining information that is later validated/confirmed.

2) It yields SIGNIFICANTLY more really false information as the target begins rambling to get it to stop.

I would say this describes a practically bad process in addition to a morally objectionable one.

 

[Belz...]

You're saying: "Look, Fawkes was tortured and gave true, valuable information."

How do you know it's the true and valuable? Because you compare it to a story gathered from the torture of his co-conspirators.

It's no coincidence that all the stories of the tortured people in the gunpowder plot line up. They would have been tortured until they did.

Ok, but how do you know that this is the case?

True, but the problem with torture is two-fold:

1) It has been shown to be much less effective at obtaining information that is later validated/confirmed.

2) It yields SIGNIFICANTLY more really false information as the target begins rambling to get it to stop.

I would say this describes a practically bad process in addition to a morally objectionable one.

See, we seem to agree. So why are we arguing?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, I think folks are arguing different meanings of "work".

[...]

if work = extracting truth as actionable information that cannot be extracted in other non-torture ways AND the torturer knows all this at the time, then no I'd say torture doesn't "work".

You left out the other side: that it generates way more bad information that other means. If the price you pay for a small amount of accurate, usable information is a mountain of ********. It's hard to see how that qualifies as "working" from the perspective of an investigator. Torture, which has been studied, leads people down the wrong road more often than not, wasting time and resources chasing phantoms.

 

[TraneWreck]

Ok, but how do you know that this is the case?

Based on the studies of the efficacy of torture and coercive interrogation techniques.

There is a huge amount of work on this subject, including a lot of really good stuff that's been linked here.

See, we seem to agree. So why are we arguing?

I think we agree on the important stuff and are arguing about a smaller, but relevant detail.

I enjoy the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

I think we agree on the important stuff and are arguing about a smaller, but relevant detail.

I enjoy the discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

True, but the problem with torture is two-fold:

1) It has been shown to be much less effective at obtaining information that is later validated/confirmed.

No, that hasn't been shown. There are no good studies on the efficacy of torture compared to other techniques. Nor can there be, under western ethics rules on research. That itself is a problem for the use of torture as a policy, but it isn't the one you claim. What you believe you know about torture, you don't.

 

[William Parcher]

Torture, which has been studied, leads people down the wrong road more often than not, wasting time and resources chasing phantoms.

Studied scientifically? How would that be done when torture is illegal and morally condemnable in the first place?

It may not be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of torture when those who might use it to its best advantage are organized criminals such as the Mafia, street gangs, cartels, etc.

 

[Crossbow]

You left out the other side: that it generates way more bad information that other means. If the price you pay for a small amount of accurate, usable information is a mountain of ********. It's hard to see how that qualifies as "working" from the perspective of an investigator. Torture, which has been studied, leads people down the wrong road more often than not, wasting time and resources chasing phantoms.

Seconded!

While the widespread use of torture can sometimes result in obtaining data that could not be readily obtained otherwise. However, the widespread use of torture also produces vast volumes of false information as well.

And by the time one separates the truth from the fiction, then then the bit of truth that was obtained via torture is simply not worth of all the effort that it took to produce that one bit of truth.

That is what I have been saying for some time now, collecting data through the use of torture is actually a very poor way to collect data.

 

[TraneWreck]

Studied scientifically? How would that be done when torture is illegal and morally condemnable in the first place?

I ask you to cast your memory all the way back to the 2000's when a group of plucky young neo-cons decided they knew better than 5 centuries of human moral development and engaged in the wide-spread use of torture.

A very detailed report was generated from that fun little experiement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture

Additionally, we have other countries who have engaged in systematic torture and kept records. The Soviet Union is a good example. Several Latin American countries who learned their techniques from us.

Also, we have a mountain of historical evidence: the combatants in WWII, the Salem Witch Trials...

There is literally endless evidence on this because we humans are sick ***** and every so often one of us has power and thinks, "Eh, all those damn hippies are wrong. Get me some sharp things and I'll find out the answer..."

Edit to add: Here's a guy who studied the neuroscience:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674743908

It may not be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of torture when those who might use it to its best advantage are organized criminals such as the Mafia, street gangs, cartels, etc.

The world would be a better place were those the only folks torturing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obviously, anyone can lie at any time. Does that even need to be said?

Yes, apparently.

However, most definitely NO, torture *IS* fundamentally different. If you are asking me questions, I can choose to stay silent, or honestly say "I don't know." Under torture, that choice is less realistic.

That doesn't change anything about the need to evaluate information once obtained.

I disagree. The moral repugnance will not be outweighed by the useless information torture will extract.

Since I never made any claim about where the balance falls, it's not possible for you to disagree with me on this. You can only disagree on whether or not this balance must be judged. If you judge this balance to fall against torture, that contradicts nothing I have said.

It's useless because it's likely a lie

You are making a claim here that you cannot actually back up.

likely unverifiable

It is no less unverifiable than information obtained by any other interrogation technique.

You haven't seen it because it's a morally bankrupt argument.

No, you are wrong. The moral repugnance of torture itself is one of the main reasons to not train people in how to use it, since effective training would require its actual use during training.

You have fundamentally failed to understand what I'm saying.

We don't throw money at better torture because torture is morally repugnant.

That agrees with what I said.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, that hasn't been shown. There are no good studies on the efficacy of torture compared to other techniques. Nor can there be, under western ethics rules on research. That itself is a problem for the use of torture as a policy, but it isn't the one you claim. What you believe you know about torture, you don't.

Maybe you addressed it earlier and I missed it, but what is your objection to the Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000 page analysis of Bush era torture effectiveness?

Some of their findings:

The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness

The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture

Their conclusion is that it was less effective than the forms of interrogation that, say, obtained accurate, useful information from KSM, among others.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe you addressed it earlier and I missed it, but what is your objection to the Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000 page analysis of Bush era torture effectiveness?

It's not a controlled study. Saying that the CIA didn't do it well doesn't mean it can't be done well.

 

[Belz...]

And by the time one separates the truth from the fiction, then then the bit of truth that was obtained via torture is simply not worth of all the effort that it took to produce that one bit of truth.

Isn't that true of intelligence gathered from any source?

 

[beren]

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.

How is giving an example "off the top of [your] head" without checking the details or making sure of its applicability and then lamenting that because someone else did check up on it and thus no evidence will be accepted even if you do actually provide meaningful and researched evidence not the very definition of disingenuous on your part?

 

[Belz...]

How is giving an example "off the top of [your] head" without checking the details or making sure of its applicability and then lamenting that because someone else did check up on it and thus no evidence will be accepted even if you do actually provide meaningful and researched evidence not the very definition of disingenuous on your part?

I highlighted the part of your post which was pure speculation. In order to make me look dishonest, you had to make stuff up. Do I have to explain how that's dishonest, beren?

The example works. I remembered it off the top of my head but I did check the details before posting. Why you somehow thought the highlighted was correct is beyond me, unless you did it specifically to make the conversation about me rather than about the example I gave.

Either way, you ended up making yourself look bad instead.

 

[William Parcher]

Governments already routinely use forms of torture which aren't really regarded as torture per se. The most common is probably the removal of freedom (jail, prison, being detained, etc.), and the threat of loss of freedom.

The simple physical presence of police is a potential threat of the loss of freedom if you do not cooperate. Do the wrong thing or say the wrong thing and you will be handcuffed. That is a mild form of torture and we actively avoid it by cooperating.

Conventional interrogation can include threats of torture. We aren't going to let you go back home to your family until you tell us what we want to know. We can keep you here for a very long time, but we won't physically touch you. It's a torture that isn't generally regarded as a torture.

 

[Crossbow]

Isn't that true of intelligence gathered from any source?

That is often the case.

I do not know if you have heard or not, but these days there is actually a considerable amount of skepticism regarding intelligence work.

While it is true that very once in a great while, intelligence services do hit a 'home run' which makes them quite appreciated for a least a few years. But the record clearly shows, that nations tend to be be poorly served by their respective intelligence services in spite of the vast amounts of resources that are used to support these intelligence services.

But that is a bit off topic for the purposes of this thread.

 

[Belz...]

That is often the case.

I do not know if you have heard or not, but these days there is actually a considerable amount of skepticism regarding intelligence work.

I heard that somewhere, yes.


The internet is really the place-par-excellence for passive aggressive comments, isn't it?

So do you agree that your objection about having to check the information obtained from torture applies to other forms of intelligence gathering or not?

 

[beren]

I highlighted the part of your post which was pure speculation. In order to make me look dishonest, you had to make stuff up. Do I have to explain how that's dishonest, beren?

The example works. I remembered it off the top of my head but I did check the details before posting. Why you somehow thought the highlighted was correct is beyond me, unless you did it specifically to make the conversation about me rather than about the example I gave.

Either way, you ended up making yourself look bad instead.

I did not reply of the top of my head. I researched first. That's how I know that the phrase has a meaning that is the antithesis of looking up facts.

Some examples:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/off-the-top-of-your-head
Note the usage example that puts the phrase and looking something up as opposites.



http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+the+top+of+head
Three explanations that support my understanding.

There are more if you want ...

You said your "supplied" the example from the "top of [your] head." In other words, what you gave us - "supplied" us- came form the top of your head. This is in no way the same as "remembering it and then researching it. Don't get upset that I believed what your actually said ....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Crossbow]

I heard that somewhere, yes.


The internet is really the place-par-excellence for passive aggressive comments, isn't it?

So do you agree that your objection about having to check the information obtained from torture applies to other forms of intelligence gathering or not?

Well of course I do agree that information collected via torture should be verified if it is possible to do so.

But even if the information is verified, then it may not be good information all the same. Also, if the information cannot be verified, then it may be good information all the same.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but this is an important issue.

If the data collected via torture can be verified, then it should be verified. However, if the information can be verified, then that rather implies that the torture was not necessary to begin with since one already had at least one other non-torture data source.

On the other hand, if the data obtained via torture cannot be verified, then that data may, or may not, be of use.

After all, military decisions are often made on the basis of incomplete and unverified information and if one were to wait until all of the information can be verified, then it is often too late for a military solution.

Accordingly, it is often difficult to say if unverified information gained via torture is really of any value at all or that the information produced via torture is actually part of some sort of disinformation mechanism.

Again, it all gets back to what I have been saying is that torture is actually a poor way of collecting data.