Effectiveness of Torture

[thaiboxerken]

In various water-boarding threads, the pro-boarders have all but admitted that water-boarding is torture. Most of them have brought up effectiveness and efficiency as part of their argument as to why it's ok to do, thus evading the actual argument as to whether it's torture or not.

However, this thread is not about discussing whether water-boarding is torture or not. This is about whether torture is effective. For the purpose of this thread, I will consider water-boarding to be a form of torture. Now, what I'd like to see is actual evidence that torture, including water-boarding, is effective, efficient and reliable as a method of interrogation. This means that such methods can actually garner more truth than lies, more information that is useful than information just spouted to satisfy the torture.

Such silly questions as "would you water-board someone to save a million lives" should be ignored, as this does not address the question of effectiveness and only the question of desperation.

So, to you torture advocates, which includes water-boarding fans, show me the evidence. Convince me that torture actually works.

 

[Drysdale]

Well, first thing that pops into my head is maybe if Obama would releases all the memos regarding this we'd have a better idea.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps. However, all we have are anecdotes and assertions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, to you torture advocates, which includes water-boarding fans, show me the evidence. Convince me that torture actually works.

Works at what?

Are you looking for a foolproof method of information gathering? Such a beast does not exist.

What are you asking for, Ken? Within the interrogation community, that is, the professionals who do this stuff day in and day out, there was apparently some heated disagreement as to its efficacy and utility. Some felt it was useless, some useful.

Maybe, you ought to ask those professionals, and listen to both sides of their argument, not just the one that applies to your own confirmation bias.

Why you'd listen is a mystery, as you seem to have already made up your mind.

Skeptic? Ken?

Hah.

As to who is right within that professional community, I direct you back to the first question I asked you: is it good at what? Does it work at what?

That it risks eliciting useless information is not in question.

That is also true for most other methods of gathering intel, be they interrogation or otherwise.

DR

 

[corplinx]

However, all we have are anecdotes and assertions.

This.

Waterboarding is different from pain based physical torture. Without a an empirical study (who wants to volunteer for that one?), we are relying on anecdotes, assumptions, etc.

"The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale."
--Howstuffworks

The wikipedia entry for waterboarding is devoid of evidence pro or against its effectiveness. However, it finds time to mention the Hannity "challenge" twice. Once in an unrelated section about mental and physical effects of waterboarding. (gotta love what activists do for accuracy).

Based on my own experiences with panic and my talks with an ex-Navy cryptographer who underwent water boarding, it is my feeling that waterboarding is probably effective to some degree. Full panic is a hard thing to condition against. The seals couldn't.

I could be completely wrong. Maybe it will turn out that all we got from KSM were body hair grooming tips.

 

[Bikewer]

It is interesting to listen to the different viewpoints. Some of the "authorities" who claim to have seen the various memos and extracts claim that actionable intelligence was gained by "harsh" interrogation techniques.

Others, viewing the same information, say none whatever...

Wasn't Khalid Sheik Mohhamed waterboarded dozens of times over a period of months? This seems to argue against any claim of "efficiency".

 

[corplinx]

It is interesting to listen to the different viewpoints. Some of the "authorities" who claim to have seen the various memos and extracts claim that actionable intelligence was gained by "harsh" interrogation techniques.

Others, viewing the same information, say none whatever...

Wasn't Khalid Sheik Mohhamed waterboarded dozens of times over a period of months? This seems to argue against any claim of "efficiency".

According to the Red Cross, he was waterboarded five times within a week.

 

[Allen773]

The title of this thread is an oxymoron.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Since it's been agreed that interrogation experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's effective or reliable, should we not ban the use of torture?

 

[Drysdale]

Since it's been agreed that interrogation experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's effective or reliable, should we not ban the use of torture?

Just to play devil's advoacate here and attempt to not derail.

How bout...Since it's been agreed that abortion experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's a baby or not, should we not ban abortion?

 

[shecky]

Not to derail, but whether a fetus is a baby or not is not central to the legality of abortion.

If the effectiveness of torture in obtaining intelligence cannot be determined, justification of it's use needs to be determined with a different line of reasoning. Let's say, for example, torturing a suspect a day keeps the doctor away. That is an outcome that can be weighed in favor of it's use.

The whole thing should be beyond argument, however. Torture techniques such as waterboarding have been used to extract confessions by all kinds of odious characters throughout history. It's theoretical usefulness is as clear as it's theoretical futility and less theoretical moral hazards. Liberty loving societies would do well to seriously weigh the costs.

Waterboarding is different from pain based physical torture

How was this determined?

It seems clear that waterboarding is very good at forcing the victims to do whatever it takes to stop the pain. Torture does work in that sense. Interestingly, Khalid Sheik Mohhamed may have been really superhuman, at least more so than any Navy SEAL, if it took more than two minutes to break him by waterboarding. I guess the extra times were just for good measure.

 

[Marc39]

Has anyone mentioned the sheer fun factor of torturing terrorists?

 

[corplinx]

It seems clear that waterboarding is very good at forcing the victims to do whatever it takes to stop the pain. Torture does work in that sense. Interestingly, Khalid Sheik Mohhamed may have been really superhuman, at least more so than any Navy SEAL, if it took more than two minutes to break him by waterboarding. I guess the extra times were just for good measure.

There are many variations of "water boarding". The term itself is a recent invention. Under the version SEALs underwent, it took on average 14 seconds to break a person. Try showing some skepticism sometime. The methodology of KSM's waterboarding is still mostly unknown.

If you had bothered to do any sort of research on the topic, you would see that generating the drowning reflex is the key to waterboarding. I am sure you can figure out why you might have to waterboard a high value asset like KSM multiple times. Clue: how long does the panicked state of mind that waterboarding relies on last?

I think the topic is a pretty dead one to be honest. Right now too much is unknown to make a reliable skeptical inquiry about the effectiveness of water boarding KSM.

What we know:
1. It breaks people. It breaks them fast.

What we don't know:
1. The questions asked
2. The answers given
3. How those answers were verified (satellite/predator/wiretap/etc)
4. How much of information was "actionable"

 

[BeAChooser]

In various water-boarding threads, the pro-boarders have all but admitted that water-boarding is torture.

I'll admit that it's torture AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. But definitions can change. Now will you admit that the other side in this war doesn't care one iota about your definition of torture other than to use it against our side so they can kill and main many more innocent people than they already have? You plan to fight this war with lawyers and the other side is laughing because they know from experience how foolish and TRULY ineffective that approach has been and will be in countering their terrorist activities.

Most of them have brought up effectiveness and efficiency as part of their argument as to why it's ok to do, thus evading the actual argument as to whether it's torture or not.

No more than your side has evaded the issue of whether waterboarding is really effective or not. If you really were convinced of your position, I'm confident you'd be joining people like me in demanding that Obama release whatever documents are needed to prove whether the CIA management lied about the effectiveness of torture or the folks on your side of this debate. But you're content to just let the issue remain muddled and unresolved because you think you can win this debate through appeals to emotional arguments in the media.

Also, I've been told by many of the folks on your side of this debate that even if waterboarding were effective in eliciting vital information that might save thousands of live (when no other method would work in the time available), they'd still be against using it. They insist it's immoral. They apparently think it's just as evil to temporarily cause some pain or discomfort in one very bad person in an effort to save thousands of lives, as to knowingly let those thousands of lives perish simply because one is unwilling to cause even temporary pain and discomfort. Even if you are not one of these people, you are evading criticism of the bogus moral equivalency they postulate between these two very morally different acts.

Now, what I'd like to see is actual evidence that torture, including water-boarding, is effective, efficient and reliable as a method of interrogation.

So would I, but at this point in time only one man can resolve this issue. Obama. Multiple top people in the CIA and intelligence agencies are on the record (as was reported in those other threads you mentioned) stating that enhanced interrogation methods, particularly waterboarding, did elicit vital information that saved lives and defeated planned/ongoing terrorist plots, when conventional methods of eliciting such information had failed. Either they are lying or they are not. And the only way to know is for Obama to release the secret reports that detail the interrogations and how the information that was obtained panned out and saved lives. If Obama won't do this, I can only presume it's because those documents show exactly what the CIA maintained and he knows that release of the documents would only serve to discredit the leftists who form the core of his support base.

Such silly questions as "would you water-board someone to save a million lives" should be ignored

This is not a silly question at all because it shows the moral inconsistency of the anti-*waterboarding* side in this debate. And the definition of torture is all about perceptions of morality. Maybe the current definition is simply wrong because the people controlling that definition are infected by the same moral inconsistencies.

So, to you torture advocates, which includes water-boarding fans, show me the evidence. Convince me that torture actually works.

You are simply rehashing a discussion that already took place on those previous threads you mentioned. Either the CIA lied or they did not. The only way to know is for Obama to release the currently secret information needed to know one way or the other. If Obama won't do that, what is he hiding? I suggest something that he thinks will hurt him politically.

 

[BeAChooser]

According to the Red Cross, he was waterboarded five times within a week.

And the CIA maintains he immediately told them valuable intel that he'd withheld when subject to conventional interrogation methods.

 

[Thunder]

what if..what if..

doctors could completely erase the memory of a detainee, so that he would have zero memory of the water-boarding, after it was done?

i have to admit, i would possibly support it. my main concern is the horrible emotional experience of being water-boarded, along with everlasting memories that go with it.

now, if the memories could be erased? that would be a whole new story. for me at least.

 

[BeAChooser]

Since it's been agreed that interrogation experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's effective or reliable, should we not ban the use of torture?

No, because we can actually determine whether waterboarding was effective. All that needs to happen is for Obama to order the release of the reports detailing the interrogations and their effectiveness. And then we can know for sure. Why is he refusing to do this, TBK? What's Obama hiding?

 

[Towlie]

I think the question is moot. Who cares if it works or not?

Whether you argue that torture shouldn't be used because it doesn't work, or that torture should be used because it does work, you're still at that same low moral level. Always remember that if you argue that torture shouldn't be used because it doesn't work, you're implying that if some new, more horrible and excruciating form of torture is developed that does work, you're okay with using it.

 

[BeAChooser]

How bout...Since it's been agreed that abortion experts cannot come to a consensus as to whether it's a baby or not, should we not ban abortion?

And in that case we can't even demand God release a report that will tell us for sure. So how about answering Drysdale's question, TBK?

 

[BeAChooser]

my main concern is the horrible emotional experience of being water-boarded, along with everlasting memories that go with it.

My main concern are the 1000's of innocent lives that might perish simply because the left is too squeamish to cause temporary pain and discomfort in a very bad, known terrorist who may have information about an impending attack. Think of the horrible emotional experience of the folks who had to jump from 100th floor of the WTC as it burned under and around them. But at least their memories lasted only as long as it takes to plummet 100 stories.