John Oliver discusses torture

[Belz...]

If stomping one infant to death will save 100 innocent people.............

If not doing so will cause those deaths, is it moral to not do so ?

Oh, wait. That's a hypothetical, and hypotheticals can be ignored.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If not doing so will cause those deaths, is it moral to not do so ?

Oh, wait. That's a hypothetical, and hypotheticals can be ignored.

Yes, ridiculous hypotheticals not grounded in reality can, and should be ignored.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Interview is to interrogation as rough treatment is to torture.

As most good interrogators will tell you, the difference between and interview and an interrogation is that in an interrogation, the subject is aware that he (or she) is being interrogated.

It's subjective. It is the intentional infliction of extreme mental or physical discomfort or pain. Of course one person's torture can be another person's mild discomfort. Some people have high pain tolerance; some have low. The Soviets apparently invented a drug which enhances pain (or lowers pain tolerance - not sure which).

Subjective. Bingo.
And without a definite set of parameters detailing what constitutes torture any debate is reduced to little more than a gypsy knife fight between two kids with Downs Syndrome. Possibly interesting, but not likely to achieve the desired results.

That said, IMO, torture (in the context of an intelligence gathering tool) would best be defined as any method of interrogation likely to result in the permanent injury or death of the subject being interrogated.

The real question, again IMO, is not whether torture works as an intelligence gathering tool, but how effective it is when used in general application. My experience has led me to believe that in this context, it is ineffective.
That is not to say that it is not effective under certain very precise and narrowly defined circumstances, only that as a general screening device it has no practical use, and more effective procedures can be implemented at less risk.

For example, there were the interrogation techniques we practiced in Vietnam. As an Infantryman and later a Reconnaissance Scout, I have some experience here.
Contrary to John Kerry's perjured testimony before Congress, we didn't routinely torture captured NVA. We were instructed to search, then secure any POW, then always offer him a cigarette and a cup of warm coffee or tea. A medic would treat his wounds, if any.
The NVA hammered into their recruits that the Americans were barbarians who relished torturing prisoners for sport and, occasionally, eating them. Most of the young soldiers (and many of the older ones) simply took it as a matter of fact.
When they were treated reasonably, an even offered what to them were luxuries (like a cigarette, especially a Salem or Kool), it started a chain of doubt that could be exploited by the interrogation teams. Sooner or later the POW would begin to think:
"If the Party lied to me about this, what else might they have misrepresented?"
From there it was a matter of cultivating this doubt to a point where the POW would voluntarily cooperate.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, ridiculous hypotheticals not grounded in reality can, and should be ignored.

Are you going to address my question or just focus on the second, less interesting part ?

 

[Belz...]

That said, IMO, torture (in the context of an intelligence gathering tool) would best be defined as any method of interrogation likely to result in the permanent injury or death of the subject being interrogated.

So you would not consider waterboarding as torture ?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

So you would not consider waterboarding as torture ?

Can you die or receive permanent injury as a result of waterboarding?
In case you weren't aware of it, yes, you can die from being waterboarded, and if it is continued long enough you can receive brain damage from lack of oxygen.

Do you consider harsh language to be torture?

 

[Belz...]

Can you die or receive permanent injury as a result of waterboarding?
In case you weren't aware of it, yes, you can die from being waterboarded, and if it is continued long enough you can receive brain damage from lack of oxygen.

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you consider harsh language to be torture?

You don't need to be adversarial. I was simply asking a question. Sheesh, what is it with people in this thread ?

 

[sunmaster14]

As most good interrogators will tell you, the difference between and interview and an interrogation is that in an interrogation, the subject is aware that he (or she) is being interrogated.

I'm not seeing the distinction. I think most people who are being interviewed are aware they are being interviewed. One difference I see is that an interrogation is almost always adversarial. An interview need not be.

<snip>

That said, IMO, torture (in the context of an intelligence gathering tool) would best be defined as any method of interrogation likely to result in the permanent injury or death of the subject being interrogated.

Then you would not view threats of torture or death, including mock executions, as torture? Because the lawyers would disagree with you.

Also, how would you classify capital punishment. Is that torture, or does it not count because it is not a method of interrogation?

The real question, again IMO, is not whether torture works as an intelligence gathering tool, but how effective it is when used in general application. My experience has led me to believe that in this context, it is ineffective.
That is not to say that it is not effective under certain very precise and narrowly defined circumstances, only that as a general screening device it has no practical use, and more effective procedures can be implemented at less risk.

I agree that it would almost certainly do more harm than good if used as a general screening device. In the case of a tough nut like KSM, who was thought to possess extremely useful information and was uncooperative, it was arguably justified.

<snip>

The NVA hammered into their recruits that the Americans were barbarians who relished torturing prisoners for sport and, occasionally, eating them. Most of the young soldiers (and many of the older ones) simply took it as a matter of fact.
When they were treated reasonably, an even offered what to them were luxuries (like a cigarette, especially a Salem or Kool), it started a chain of doubt that could be exploited by the interrogation teams. Sooner or later the POW would begin to think:
"If the Party lied to me about this, what else might they have misrepresented?"
From there it was a matter of cultivating this doubt to a point where the POW would voluntarily cooperate.

Well, still, there's a world of difference between a young, uneducated soldier and a terrorist mastermind like KSM. Not even counting the difference in moral culpability, which is relevant only so far as a moral analysis is concerned.

 

[marplots]

Contrary to John Kerry's perjured testimony before Congress, we didn't routinely torture captured NVA. We were instructed to search, then secure any POW, then always offer him a cigarette and a cup of warm coffee or tea. A medic would treat his wounds, if any.
The NVA hammered into their recruits that the Americans were barbarians who relished torturing prisoners for sport and, occasionally, eating them. Most of the young soldiers (and many of the older ones) simply took it as a matter of fact.
When they were treated reasonably, an even offered what to them were luxuries (like a cigarette, especially a Salem or Kool), it started a chain of doubt that could be exploited by the interrogation teams. Sooner or later the POW would begin to think:
"If the Party lied to me about this, what else might they have misrepresented?"
From there it was a matter of cultivating this doubt to a point where the POW would voluntarily cooperate.

And that worked better than killing and eating a few while the others watched? Because... without a comparison study we just don't know.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Thanks for the clarification.



You don't need to be adversarial. I was simply asking a question. Sheesh, what is it with people in this thread ?

How so? You asked a question that had already been answered in the post you were responding to. Many people would consider that as an adversarial statement.
In regards to "harsh language" it is a response in kind, differing only in that in this case there are posters who consider harsh language to be torture. See sunmaster14's post.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm not seeing the distinction. I think most people who are being interviewed are aware they are being interviewed. One difference I see is that an interrogation is almost always adversarial. An interview need not be.

The purpose of both is to acquire intelligence (to gain information from an individual). The methodology of acquiring said intelligence is the same (asking questions).
Both are always adversarial. The only difference is that in an interrogation the subject is aware he is being interrogated, in an interview he may not be.

Then you would not view threats of torture or death, including mock executions, as torture? Because the lawyers would disagree with you.

Really? I think you're drawing a very fine line here. The Supreme Court long ago issued an opinion affirming the right of interrogators to use deceptive tactics to elicit cooperation. As long as it is only a threat, it's not torture.

Also, how would you classify capital punishment. Is that torture, or does it not count because it is not a method of interrogation?

What does that have to do with this debate? I classify capital punishment as capital punishment, a practice that has nothing to do with either torture or methods of interrogation. If you somehow believe that executing a person may elicit his cooperation in any manner, then you've been watching too many installments of "The Ghost Whisperer".

I agree that it would almost certainly do more harm than good if used as a general screening device. In the case of a tough nut like KSM, who was thought to possess extremely useful information and was uncooperative, it was arguably justified.

KSM, IMO, fit into that very precise and narrowly defined category of instances where enhanced interrogation may be employed. You use a net to catch tuna, and a harpoon to catch a whale.

Well, still, there's a world of difference between a young, uneducated soldier and a terrorist mastermind like KSM. Not even counting the difference in moral culpability, which is relevant only so far as a moral analysis is concerned.

There is certainly a world of difference between the two. This is why any type of physical coercion should be avoided excepting under certain unique and narrowly defined circumstances.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

And that worked better than killing and eating a few while the others watched? Because... without a comparison study we just don't know.

Interesting comment, leaving us to believe that without a comparison study nothing can be inferred from the obvious.
Example:
Which is more pleasurable?
A. Having sex with (insert fantasy partner here).
B. Jamming your johnson into a meat grinder and cranking the handle.

I'm fairly sure I know which one I'd choose. But that's just me.

 

[marplots]

Interesting comment, leaving us to believe that without a comparison study nothing can be inferred from the obvious.
Example:
Which is more pleasurable?
A. Having sex with (insert fantasy partner here).
B. Jamming your johnson into a meat grinder and cranking the handle.

I'm fairly sure I know which one I'd choose. But that's just me.

That's quite the conundrum for the man whose fantasy partner is a meat grinder.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are you going to address my question or just focus on the second, less interesting part ?

The second part is the most important. If a hypothesis does not present a realistic scenario, then it is irrelevant.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

That's quite the conundrum for the man whose fantasy partner is a meat grinder.

I'm sure it would pose quite a dilemma for him.
Meanwhile the other 7 billion or so of us on this planet should be able to make a decision without demanding a comparison study.

 

[marplots]

I'm sure it would pose quite a dilemma for him.
Meanwhile the other 7 billion or so of us on this planet should be able to make a decision without demanding a comparison study.

To be fair though, not all the 7 billion possess the equipment needed to properly evaluate the hypothetical, missing the meat grinder or the meat, as the case may be.

 

[Belz...]

How so? You asked a question that had already been answered in the post you were responding to. Many people would consider that as an adversarial statement.

Many would consider a question as an adversarial statement ? I'm sorry but that's nonsensical.

The second part is the most important. If a hypothesis does not present a realistic scenario, then it is irrelevant.

It's YOUR hypothetical, Ken. Why bring it up if you're unwilling to discuss it ?

 

[Aepervius]

I'm still not sure that it doesn't work.
Just not reliably.
People will tell you what they think will stop the torture.
I'm sure that sometimes includes the information the interviewers want to know.

Innocent people will admit guilt over stuff like murder after hours of interrogation which do not involve torture. What makes you think there is *any* reliability to torture at all ? So far as I can tell if the presented information is correct, no useful information whatsoever was obtained by torture.

 

[Ziggurat]

Innocent people will admit guilt over stuff like murder after hours of interrogation which do not involve torture.

So interrogation which does not involve torture is unreliable too.

So far as I can tell if the presented information is correct, no useful information whatsoever was obtained by torture.

No, that's not correct.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Who has defended the use of torture? I haven't.

And I haven't and I'm not conservative.
When one reads through the lens of their preconceived notions, that sort of thing happens though.