Jesse Ventura says water boarding is indeed torture

[Tony Stark]

It is really good at getting people to say what you want them to say.

For example, the CIA had a member of al Qaeda renditioned to Egypt to be tortured. Under torture he claimed that Saddam gave al Qaeda help with WMDs. The Bush administration used this "intel" to help sell the Iraq war even though the CIA and the DIA suspected he made it up.

Note that this same person was previously in FBI custody. He cooperated with them. They achieved this by bonding with him and offering a deal which would allow his family to move to the US. Then the CIA came and took him so they could have him tortured in Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi

 

[pgwenthold]

Can you provide a single example of torture being used to acquire accurate information? Just once, throughout the history of mankind?

When he was growing up, he could get his little brother to admit that he was King of the World by giving him a major wedgie.

It worked!

"Who's the King of the World?"

"You are"

 

[Tony Stark]

Jack Bauer used torture a bunch of times with success. For example, terrorists were trying to nuke Los Angeles, and he used torture to find the location of the bomb. If he didn't torture that terrorist like a million people would have died. Is that what you would have prefered, liberals?

 

[William Parcher]

It's pretty easy to imagine that when torture is illegal or morally condemnable you would have difficulty citing examples of when torture "works". A torturer who brings forth evidence that their work yielded real fruit would be a person who is confessing to a crime. IOW, you would not hear about instances of torture that caused the victim to give the information that the torturer sought.

By its nature, it's one of those kinds of things.

 

[Crossbow]

Jack Bauer used torture a bunch of times with success. For example, terrorists were trying to nuke Los Angeles, and he used torture to find the location of the bomb. If he didn't torture that terrorist like a million people would have died. Is that what you would have prefered, liberals?

I often find that is the main problem with pro-torture people.

They watch too much TV.

 

[Belz...]

This just isn't accurate. There are centuries upon centuries of data demonstrating that torture is not an effective means of information gathering:

Careful now. It's not reliable in a lot of cases, but it does work at least some of the time.

The morality of torture is a separate and, for me, convincing argument in and of itself.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry 'Ziggurat', but torture is actually a very poor way of collecting data.

Again, it depends. The mere threat of hurting me or my loved ones would be enough for me to tell you anything you want, and accurately at that.

The reliability of torture (again, distinctly from its morality) depends on the questions, the victim, etc.

 

[Belz...]

I often find that is the main problem with pro-torture people.

They watch too much TV.

Saying that torture may work in some instances isn't being "pro-torture" any more that saying that nukes can end wars means you're in favour of using them.

 

[TraneWreck]

Careful now. It's not reliable in a lot of cases, but it does work at least some of the time.

Sure, you're right. That part wasn't specific enough. I tried to indicate RELIABLE or ACCURATE information.

It's super good for getting incorrect information and information the torturers want to hear, generally false confession.

The morality of torture is a separate and, for me, convincing argument in and of itself.

Me too. The fact that it is so useless as an intelligence gathering process is only meaningful to the extent it undercuts the proponents.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Careful now. It's not reliable in a lot of cases, but it does work at least some of the time.

Can you provide an example?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's commendable that he was able (and let's be honest... allowed) to leverage the many shared social aspects between himself and his Allied prisoners. His personal command of English as well as US and UK customs, humor etc. were no doubt invaluable.
A very slow method, but good on him for persevering (it makes clear he "learned as he went"). The old "honey vs. vinegar" argument.

Much of that though may have been sadly inapplicable to the situation in Gitmo.
I don't condone the traditional class of brutal torture we probably all picture (bamboo under the nails, electroshock, etc) but I'm fairly okay with finding an effective middle ground.
Yes... pain, fear and deprivation can and do produce real intel. I see no justification in being gleefully sadistic about it though.

Does this mean that in abu ghraib the soldier were doing right and proper things to soften up the prisoners for interrogation?

 

[Belz...]

The fact that it is so useless as an intelligence gathering process is only meaningful to the extent it undercuts the proponents.

Again, you're overstating your case. It's not reliable in a lot of cases, but it does deliver accurate information more often than we'd like to admit, because we're morally opposed to it, so we've convinced ourselves that it doesn't work to bolster our case.

Can you provide an example?

I offered myself as an example just minutes ago.

 

[Bob001]

Careful now. It's not reliable in a lot of cases, but it does work at least some of the time.
....

How much of the time? And how does that compare to legal methods of interrogation supported by the FBI, the Army field manual, etc.? The new SecDef/ex-combat commander told D. Trump that he gets better information with a beer and a cigarette than torture. You think he doesn't know what he's talking about?
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-mattis-trump-torture-2016-11

 

[TraneWreck]

Again, you're overstating your case. It's not reliable in a lot of cases, but it does deliver accurate information more often than we'd like to admit, because we're morally opposed to it, so we've convinced ourselves that it doesn't work to bolster our case.

You can scroll through this thread. I and others have offered a lot of evidence against that claim. It doesn't work as well as other forms of interrogation, and it promotes bad information as people say whatever they can to make it stop.

 

[Crossbow]

Again, it depends. The mere threat of hurting me or my loved ones would be enough for me to tell you anything you want, and accurately at that.

The reliability of torture (again, distinctly from its morality) depends on the questions, the victim, etc.

First, please keep in mind that I said that torture is a very poor way of collecting data.

Second, I expect that if you (or just about anyone) were actually faced with a situation where they were about to be tortured in order to provide some data that was needed by a hostile power, then that person would resist far more than they would initially believe that they would. At least that is what has normally been the case.

Third, I find it quite instructive to actually study how torture has been used to obtain data.

In the case of World War II, for example, lots of people were tortured in order to obtain information, and that information was normally obtained sooner or later.

However, people with really critical data were normally quite successful at holding out for at least 24 hours which gave their friends enough time to get clear, alter their plans, change the codes, and so on.

Furthermore, when new data is collected via torture, then the data has to be analyzed, verified, and then finally distributed to the appropriate people for appropriate action. And by the time all of these thing occur, then almost always the data has lost its value.

Accordingly, the use of torture is actually a very poor way of collecting data.

 

[Crossbow]

Saying that torture may work in some instances isn't being "pro-torture" any more that saying that nukes can end wars means you're in favour of using them.

Actually, I do not know of even one single case where torture has actually worked anywhere near to the extent that it does on TV shows and such.

However, if you do know of such a case, then please share it with us.

 

[Lithrael]

I offered myself as an example just minutes ago.

But you are only guessing. You have no idea what you would do in the face of torture if you had something or someone you cared deeply about on the line. If you are saying you can't imagine resisting torture, or can't imagine having something at risk worth resisting torture for, that is your imagination and not a data point.

 

[TraneWreck]

Saying that torture may work in some instances isn't being "pro-torture" any more that saying that nukes can end wars means you're in favour of using them.

I think a lot of the argument is confusion over the term "works" - or a lack of consistent use between us.

What do you mean, it works?

Proponents of torture cite it as MORE effective than other means of interrogation. The only thing that justifies the immorality of the act is the superior information-gathering effect. Sometimes it's cited as the ONLY way of obtaining needed intelligence.

The fact that at some point in the history of humanity a person has given correct information to their torturer is not, in my mind, evidence that it "works." It's like saying, "Hey, my watch says it's 5:00 and I just confirmed it was 5:00, it must work." Or it's stopped at the right place.

Torture is less reliable than more humane means. It generates more incorrect information.

Take the example you gave of yourself - you would turn over that information upon torture, but what if they were asking you something you didn't know? You would attempt to convince them of your lack of helpful knowledge, but eventually you would just start spewing out anything you could.

It does not work if by "work" you mean, reliably yields useful and accurate information. It works even less well compared to better processes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think a lot of the argument is confusion over the term "works" - or a lack of consistent use between us.

What do you mean, it works?

Proponents of torture cite it as MORE effective than other means of interrogation. The only thing that justifies the immorality of the act is the superior information-gathering effect. Sometimes it's cited as the ONLY way of obtaining needed intelligence.

The fact that at some point in the history of humanity a person has given correct information to their torturer is no, in my mind, evidence that it "works." It's like saying, "Hey, my watch says it's 5:00 and I just confirmed it was 5:00, it must work." Or it's stopped at the right place.

Torture is less reliable than more humane means. It generates more incorrect information.

Take the example you gave of yourself - you would turn over that information, but what if they were asking you something you didn't know? You would start by making that point, but eventually you would just start spewing out anything you could.

It does not work if by "work" you mean, reliably yields useful and accurate information. It works even less well compared to better processes.

But what about my contrived fictional example!

 

[Bob001]

....
I offered myself as an example just minutes ago.

But you didn't compare it to alternatives, like maybe immunity from prosecution if you give up your co-conspirators, or even a big bribe. And what if what they wanted was the whereabouts of your children, and you knew your kids would be killed on the spot when found? You think you'd give it up easily?