A case where I would support torture.

[Regnad Kcin]

...You created a scenario that has no chance of ever being applicable in the real world to come up with something ethically acceptable so you can look for a practical place to apply these ethics in the real world. This is dangerous.

Well said, fishbob.

 

[Ladewig]

No, you'd have to push the guy until you got something verifiable in a short amount of time, like the exact location of the bomb.

I wonder if getting someone drunk actually works or only in spy comedies.

I don't know about that, but I do know that police in the U.S. use the tactic by placing a suspect in a cell that is monitored or in a cell with a police informant. The military uses psychological tricks in questioning suspects; some posters on this board have mentioned some of them.

There are many options beyond torturing and serving tea.

 

[CFLarsen]

What makes you so sure torture doesn't work? Mind you, I don't know if it works or not, I'm just curious.

Torture doesn't work to get information out of people. Torture makes people say anything they think their torturer wants them to say.

However, if you use torture to break down people, sure, it works. It's very effective, in fact. But not as a means to get information.

 

[Donks]

Torture doesn't work to get information out of people. Torture makes people say anything they think their torturer wants them to say.

However, if you use torture to break down people, sure, it works. It's very effective, in fact. But not as a means to get information.

But if they'll say anything then isn't it possible they'll say exactly what the torturer is looking for, and has a chance to verify?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Its not a slippery slope. It is just genuine curiosity about the way different people see the world. For example, Earthborn's view on this is completely at the opposite end of the spectrum from mine. I think it is interesting to find out about it and discuss it. That's all.

It is interesting. I always find our discussions here, enlightening.

Charlie (no ad hom implied) Monoxide

 

[CFLarsen]

But if they'll say anything then isn't it possible they'll say exactly what the torturer is looking for, and has a chance to verify?

Ah, but do you want 1,000 pieces of information, but only 1 correct?

The reason why people are tortured for information is to get the correct information, and only that.

Problem is, you won't get that.

 

[epepke]

By "torture", I'm not talking about sleep deprivation and being photographed nude. I'm talking real torture. Things you don't even want to imagine.

Here is a scenario where I would support it...

We know that a nuclear bomb has come into the country. We know it is a matter of days before it goes off. But we don't know which city it is in, much less knowing exactly where it is in that city.

We capture a member of the organization that has planted the bomb. He says "Yep, I admit it. I carried the thing across the border myself, and I know exactly where it is. And it is going off in less than 48 hours. But I'm not telling you where it is. I've watched CNN, I know you guys don't torture. So tough. You'll just have to watch hundreds of thousands suffer and/or die. I'm not talking!"

I would say to the goverment: go for it. Knock yourself out. Do anything it takes to get him to cough up the info.

Is there anyone here that wouldn't support it? If you wouldn't, what course of action would you recommend?

I wouldn't.

I would inject the person with the drug, available for about ten years now, that simply blocks all dopamine receptors, completely taking away the person's sense of well being, and then interrogate him.

Typically, people break after about 8 hours. The last I heard (this was around 1998), nobody has ever held out for more than 14 hours.

All this mucking about with peripheral nerves is just a waste of time, and the only reasonable explanation for it is that people like torturing and enjoy it as a recreational activity. Sure, it's real hell to have your dopamine receptors blocked, but once you administer the antagonist, it's all OK.

(Dear Mr. Government Agent: I would be happy to tell you from whom I got this information, because I would enjoy seeing their lives ruined.)

 

[Mid]

Another problem with the scenario is that although we're facing a ticking clock the terrorist also knows that as soon as the bomb goes off there is no incentive for us to continue torturing him. So all he has to do is face some periods of torture over those 48 hours, and he can break these periods up with incorrect information. Obviously a lot of people would crack under this situation however the guys a fanatic and we can't assume that he would. For instance Guy Fawkes lasted 4 days under torture before giving away his accomplices:

http://www.novareinna.com/festive/fawkes.html

By order of King James, "gentler tortours" were first to be administered to Fawkes, since torture was contrary to common law unless authorized by the reigning monarch or Privy Council. Eventually, on November 7, Fawkes' spirit was broken. He confessed his true name and that the Plot had been confined to five men. The following day, he recounted the events of the conspiracy without naming names...but, on November 9, Fawkes identified his fellow conspirators, having heard that some of them had already been arrested at Holbeche. Fawkes' final signature (a barely legible scrawl) is testament to his suffering. There is no record of exactly what forms of torture Fawkes was subjected to, although it is almost certain that manacles were employed and, most probably, also the rack. It would appear that he was also confined for some period of time to the infamous "Little Ease" located in the Tower of London...a cell so small that it was impossible to stand, sit or lie down properly with any degree of comfort.

and:

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot07/snapshot7.htm

So the question basically comes down to which method do you think is more likely to get the relevant information torture or other interrogation techniques? Personally, given the time frame I think either would be futile so we may as well keep our morality. Obviously if we increase the time frame the other interrogation techniques, physical searches etc. have a great change of succeeding, whereas torture has a greater chance of breaking the individual mentally and perhaps destroying the information.

 

[Freakshow]

I wouldn't.

I would inject the person with the drug, available for about ten years now, that simply blocks all dopamine receptors, completely taking away the person's sense of well being, and then interrogate him.

Typically, people break after about 8 hours. The last I heard (this was around 1998), nobody has ever held out for more than 14 hours.

All this mucking about with peripheral nerves is just a waste of time, and the only reasonable explanation for it is that people like torturing and enjoy it as a recreational activity. Sure, it's real hell to have your dopamine receptors blocked, but once you administer the antagonist, it's all OK.

(Dear Mr. Government Agent: I would be happy to tell you from whom I got this information, because I would enjoy seeing their lives ruined.)

Oh man, that is harsh. As someone who has experimented a bit in his life with increasing the activity of dopamine, I know what a powerful neurotransmitter it is. There's nothing like it. I can't imagine what your are describing. Coming down is bad enough. But having dopamine receptors blocked? I don't want to imagine the feeling.

 

[Earthborn]

I don't see how you can equate torture with burning, formatting or degaussing a disk, especially considering what you say in the rest of your post. Neither of the three options you give in your hypothetical have the slightest chance -not even by accident- of producing any information, much less accurate information.

I admit that the diskette example is a bit different than the terrorist example. Destroying the diskette is much less unlikely to produce the correct information than torture. Also, trying to decode the diskette is much more likely to produce the correct information than treating the terrorist with care.

However the comparison between diskettes and terrorists is not central to my argument. What is central to my argument is the comparison between treatment that is gives you some chance of getting the correct information and treatment that gives you a lower chance of getting the information and a chance of destroying that information.

Here is my problem with your approach. You assume the cartoon villain could be reasoned with.

No, I don't. I assume that the villian can be manipulated into thinking it is in his best interest to tell the correct location of the bomb. Any method that can be used to make him think that way and that carries no risk of damaging the information is just as good as any other. No method that might be seen as torture has those properties.

All I know is that if I was being tortured at first I might try to play hero and give false info, but pretty damn quick I'd tell the interrogator whatever I though he wanted to hear, up to and including whatever secret information I had

Okay, now imagine that you are willing to tell the interrogator the secret information but because you have been under enormous stress because of the torture you honestly can't remember it. Or you are no longer able to understand what the interrogator asks you. Or you can't utter a coherent sentence any more. The torturer continues to torture you because he thinks you fake being crazy.

But in the extreme case described here, where I believe the point is to either try torture or accept the loss of a city, I would risk it.

The problem is that it can't be "try torture or accept the loss of a city". It's more "try torture and risk the loss of a city" or "don't try torture and have a reduced risk to lose a city."

It's the summer of 1941 (snip) axis of attack etc.

Since it still revolves around obtaining crucial information, the hypothetical is very much the same as the 'ticking time-bomb scenario'. And it suffers from the same fatal flaw: torture is not a reliable way to gain information, and could damage the information you are looking for.

Invent a hypothetical situation where the information in someone's head is irrelevant.

The city named is where your family lives.

Same thing. It could be that because I am emotionally involved I am more likely to lose my temper with the terrorist and start torturing him. But that does not bring the rescue of my family any closer.

But if they'll say anything then isn't it possible they'll say exactly what the torturer is looking for, and has a chance to verify?

Anything is possible. But you must weigh your chances: do you use a method has a good chance of being effective but may not be quick enough, or do you use a method that has not such a good chance of being effective but a high risk the information is lost.

 

[Kerberos]

I wouldn't.

I would inject the person with the drug, available for about ten years now, that simply blocks all dopamine receptors, completely taking away the person's sense of well being, and then interrogate him.

Typically, people break after about 8 hours. The last I heard (this was around 1998), nobody has ever held out for more than 14 hours.

All this mucking about with peripheral nerves is just a waste of time, and the only reasonable explanation for it is that people like torturing and enjoy it as a recreational activity. Sure, it's real hell to have your dopamine receptors blocked, but once you administer the antagonist, it's all OK.

(Dear Mr. Government Agent: I would be happy to tell you from whom I got this information, because I would enjoy seeing their lives ruined.)

What you descripe isn't an alternative to torture, it's a form of torture.

 

[jay gw]

If torture is so successful then why are nations that allow it full of terrorists?

Didn't Osama Bin Laden recruit from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan - both of which use it?

 

[Freakshow]

If torture is so successful then why are nations that allow it full of terrorists?

Didn't Osama Bin Laden recruit from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan - both of which use it?

Which one of these two were you thinking of?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html

 

[Kerberos]

still revolves around obtaining crucial information, the hypothetical is very much the same as the 'ticking time-bomb scenario'. And it suffers from the same fatal flaw: torture is not a reliable way to gain information, and could damage the information you are looking for.

Invent a hypothetical situation where the information in someone's head is irrelevant.

Sure it's the same as the Ticking Bomb scenario, I invented it to be identical because LW objected that the ticking bomb scenario was unrealistic, and I though this was more realistic. As for the "fatal flaw" the "fatal flaw" in your argument is that it's based on nothing more than the assertion that torture is inefficient. You have produced no evidence that the "pretty please" method is more efficient the "dopamin blockers(or whatever other form of torture we might use)" method. Now you might object that I have provided no evidence that torture is efficient, which is true, and I'm obviously reluctant to perform empirical test of the hypothesis, but on the face of it I'm simply skeptical that psychological methods should have the almost magical properties you atribute to them. Ordinary criminals often refuse to cooperate with the police and they're probably far less motivated than terrorists. On the other hand there was a case in germany where the police obtained information about the location of an abducted boy (already dead unfortunatly) by threatening to torture the suspect. http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/deu-summary-eng

 

[LW]

The Nazis already regard the Russian as "Undermenchen" and treat their prisoners like animals, so there's no hope that they'll treat your prisoners nicely even if you do.

How the enemy treats your captured soldier is not really the most important issue here. What is more important is that if you mistreat your prisoners, knowledge of it will eventually reach the ears of the enemy soldiers, and then they will be less likely to surrender.

And that is a very bad thing to happen. In a normal war, only a small percentage of soldiers are really prepared to fight until death. Most soldiers will either retreat or surrender rather than face certain death. You want that as many of them as possible choose the surrendering option as quickly as possible. Everything that you do that makes the enemy fight longer before surrendering will increase your own casualties in the long run.

So do you 1) Do nothing thereby further endangering not only Russia, but the entire civilized world, or 2) Torture him in order to obtain information about troop placements, axis of attack etc.

If this is to be a realistic example, the captured officer will not have enough information for the Soviets to win the whole war based on it. (For example, in 1943 the Soviets had complete plans of Operation Zitadelle for months before the attack date but still the Germans almost managed to break through).

How many captured officers do you think you could torture before they all start blowing their brains out when threatened by capture? Getting some information out of thousands of prisoners is much better than getting everything out of several, no matter how important they are. And that is supposing that torture will work.

As a funny coincidence I was today rereading the second part of Marshall Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov's memoirs (????? ???????? ?????, "The End of 3rd Reich"). Chuikov was the guy who led the defence of Stalingrad proper and who later led the 8th Guards Breaktrough Army that, well, broke trough the German defence lines on at least three occasions while suffering few casualties (that is, "few" by Soviet standards, YMMV).

In the book he mentions what he found to be the most effective interrogation technique. Was it beatings? Sleep deprivation? Threatening to send them to Siberia for the rest of their wretched lives? [On occasion Soviets used all of those.]

No. The marshal found that the best way to make a POW talk was to give him a cigarette.

Does this mean that every captured German spilled his guts because he got a cigarette? Of course not. There was a great number of men who didn't tell anything. But kind treatment made enough Germans talk.

 

[Magyar]

First - the premise setup by you - that the terrorist would brag about knowing where the bomb is etc - I think is totally Hollywood bs scenario.

Thinking as a would be terrorist -
Any terrorist who was hard core enough to be involved with such an operation would most likely go down in a hail of bullets before being captured this close to detonation. If he couldn't do that it would only be because he was unarmed and if captured would know enough about the system that he would refuse to talk, identify himself, ask for a lawyer and deny everything. His commitment to his goal is NOT to brag but to kill!

Second, the odds are that anyone you would be able to capture this close to detonation and was not with the bomb wouldn't really know the final details. Maybe the city, but not an address. Good luck searching Los Angeles - remember we're talking nuclear bomb so this could mean anywhere in LA, Orange and Ventura county - just to name 3 that would have legit targets - in 12 hours.

Fourth - (and I didn't read through all the post so maybe someone responded) What IF you captured the right guy, and you KNEW it was the right guy. Again, we are talking about people who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and pull the trigger. If given the option they may want to live, but they believe that dieing IS BETTER! So even if you tortured them, they would rather die than talk.

Fifth - It got brushed off a little because of the personal attack, but it IS a very real scenario that someone like this (or realy anyone) would put someone elses life above theirs. So Lets say this guys weakness WAS his neices, and you determined that no matter what you did to him personally in the next 12 hours he would rather die than talk. After all he know that he only has to last x amount of time or die. This isn't one of those "we'll keep doing this for ever" kind of deals. BUT if you tortured this innocent 8 year old girl, he would tell you everything he knew? What then? Do we write this off to one of those greater good things?

 

[Kerberos]

How the enemy treats your captured soldier is not really the most important issue here. What is more important is that if you mistreat your prisoners, knowledge of it will eventually reach the ears of the enemy soldiers, and then they will be less likely to surrender.

And that is a very bad thing to happen. In a normal war, only a small percentage of soldiers are really prepared to fight until death. Most soldiers will either retreat or surrender rather than face certain death. You want that as many of them as possible choose the surrendering option as quickly as possible. Everything that you do that makes the enemy fight longer before surrendering will increase your own casualties in the long run.

All, very true, but we're talking about a single case here, not a general policy of torturing everybody from private up.

If this is to be a realistic example, the captured officer will not have enough information for the Soviets to win the whole war based on it.

Certainly that's why I said "further endanger" rather than "doom beoynd all hope" or something like that. It's my impression that the Eastern front was touch adn go for some time, so I don't think it's implausible that having (or not having) the information about an offensive could have made a significant difference

(For example, in 1943 the Soviets had complete plans of Operation Zitadelle for months before the attack date but still the Germans almost managed to break through).

I don't see how that proves that having advance notice of the enemy plans isn't highly significant. If the Soviets hadn't had the plans the Germans might actually have broken through rather than just coming close.

How many captured officers do you think you could torture before they all start blowing their brains out when threatened by capture? Getting some information out of thousands of prisoners is much better than getting everything out of several, no matter how important they are.

As I said we're tlaking about a single case not a general policy. You've captured one high ranking German general with knoelegde of the plans.

And that is supposing that torture will work.

As a funny coincidence I was today rereading the second part of Marshall Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov's memoirs (????? ???????? ?????, "The End of 3rd Reich"). Chuikov was the guy who led the defence of Stalingrad proper and who later led the 8th Guards Breaktrough Army that, well, broke trough the German defence lines on at least three occasions while suffering few casualties (that is, "few" by Soviet standards, YMMV).

In the book he mentions what he found to be the most effective interrogation technique. Was it beatings? Sleep deprivation? Threatening to send them to Siberia for the rest of their wretched lives? [On occasion Soviets used all of those.]

No. The marshal found that the best way to make a POW talk was to give him a cigarette.

Does this mean that every captured German spilled his guts because he got a cigarette? Of course not. There was a great number of men who didn't tell anything. But kind treatment made enough Germans talk.

Well first of all what you write in a biography and what's actually true are two different things. Saying " oh no we didn't torture, doesn't work anyways, nop we just gave them cigarettes and asked whether they'd feel like sharing anything" is more political than saying "yep, we tortured the living hell out of all them SOB, it was fun too". That's not to say it couldn't be true, but let's not overestimate the reliability of the source. Still even if it's generally true, that doesn't mean it's always true, we might already have offered the German general a cigarette without succes.

 

[Freakshow]

First - the premise setup by you - that the terrorist would brag about knowing where the bomb is etc - I think is totally Hollywood bs scenario.

Thinking as a would be terrorist -
Any terrorist who was hard core enough to be involved with such an operation would most likely go down in a hail of bullets before being captured this close to detonation. If he couldn't do that it would only be because he was unarmed and if captured would know enough about the system that he would refuse to talk, identify himself, ask for a lawyer and deny everything. His commitment to his goal is NOT to brag but to kill!

Second, the odds are that anyone you would be able to capture this close to detonation and was not with the bomb wouldn't really know the final details. Maybe the city, but not an address. Good luck searching Los Angeles - remember we're talking nuclear bomb so this could mean anywhere in LA, Orange and Ventura county - just to name 3 that would have legit targets - in 12 hours.

Fourth - (and I didn't read through all the post so maybe someone responded) What IF you captured the right guy, and you KNEW it was the right guy. Again, we are talking about people who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and pull the trigger. If given the option they may want to live, but they believe that dieing IS BETTER! So even if you tortured them, they would rather die than talk.

Fifth - It got brushed off a little because of the personal attack, but it IS a very real scenario that someone like this (or realy anyone) would put someone elses life above theirs. So Lets say this guys weakness WAS his neices, and you determined that no matter what you did to him personally in the next 12 hours he would rather die than talk. After all he know that he only has to last x amount of time or die. This isn't one of those "we'll keep doing this for ever" kind of deals. BUT if you tortured this innocent 8 year old girl, he would tell you everything he knew? What then? Do we write this off to one of those greater good things?

That was answered already. You just have to read all the posts. (I know, I know...I don't read all the posts in a thread before replying, either. Not enough time.)

 

[Elind]

By "torture", I'm not talking about sleep deprivation and being photographed nude. I'm talking real torture. Things you don't even want to imagine.

Here is a scenario where I would support it...

We know that a nuclear bomb has come into the country. We know it is a matter of days before it goes off. But we don't know which city it is in, much less knowing exactly where it is in that city.

We capture a member of the organization that has planted the bomb. He says "Yep, I admit it. I carried the thing across the border myself, and I know exactly where it is. And it is going off in less than 48 hours. But I'm not telling you where it is. I've watched CNN, I know you guys don't torture. So tough. You'll just have to watch hundreds of thousands suffer and/or die. I'm not talking!"

I would say to the goverment: go for it. Knock yourself out. Do anything it takes to get him to cough up the info.

Is there anyone here that wouldn't support it? If you wouldn't, what course of action would you recommend?

Forgive me, but here we go again.

I don't think the real issue is various hypotheticals when anything goes, but what constitutes torture in the first place.

In some circles anything that could be considered unpleasant or even inconvenient seems to be called torture. I've seen it defined as "bullying" for example. Threats can be called torture. Lies can be called torture. Cutting off body parts can be called torture, and I'm sure we would all agree it is, but what of the rest?

 

[fishbob]

Forgive me, but here we go again.

I don't think the real issue is various hypotheticals when anything goes, but what constitutes torture in the first place.

In some circles anything that could be considered unpleasant or even inconvenient seems to be called torture. I've seen it defined as "bullying" for example. Threats can be called torture. Lies can be called torture. Cutting off body parts can be called torture, and I'm sure we would all agree it is, but what of the rest?

I proposed a definition is a previous thread somewhere.

Sort of like this:

If you can stand up in front of a room full of kids and comfortably describe what you did to somebody with no reference to why you did it, it probably is not torture.