John Oliver discusses torture

[angrysoba]

I expect it can be, and has been, used very successfully:

"What's your PIN?"

"I'll never tell you!"

*crack*

"Gaaaaaaaaah! It's 1234!"

*PIN works; robbers steal cash*

I think the arguments that torture doesn't work are a bit dangerous, because it detracts from the argument that it is morally wrong.

 

[deaman]

Don't these people know that God will "get them" and torture them for all eternity if they tell a lie?

Just letting them know this information should do the trick.

 

[Tolls]

To be fair, the use of that argument that most sticks out in my memory was in a science fiction novel written by an author so right wing that most of the current Republican candidates would probably listen to him and say "Umm...that's a bit much."

Don't leave that hanging there...who?

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

The problem is that we have zero record of any intelligence successes resulting from torture at least back to 9/11. So, we don't really need to debate whether it might or might not work. We tried it and, in practice, it didn't work.

 

[sunmaster14]

I wouldn't be shocked to find out that I was arguing it. Not that it's impossible to get accurate information from torture but rather that because torture is so unreliable, you need reliable sources to verify it, which makes torture redundant.

Yes, well that does seem to be what people were arguing, including many in this thread. Evidently, none of those people understand the concept of a one-way hash.

 

[shuttlt]

I expect it can be, and has been, used very successfully:

"What's your PIN?"

"I'll never tell you!"

*crack*

"Gaaaaaaaaah! It's 1234!"

*PIN works; robbers steal cash*

I think the arguments that torture doesn't work are a bit dangerous, because it detracts from the argument that it is morally wrong.

I don't think this is a very good example. Surely most of the time one doesn't have an immediate way of verifying the story... hence in the short term the torture stops regardless of the truth? Secondly, isn't there a risk of some kind of brutal version of clever hands here if the torturer does already have an idea of what the torturee is supposed to be hiding?

 

[marplots]

I wouldn't be shocked to find out that I was arguing it. Not that it's impossible to get accurate information from torture but rather that because torture is so unreliable, you need reliable sources to verify it, which makes torture redundant.

You need that with or without torture. Reliability is established, not by the method used to get "information," but by consilience. To "work," all torture has to accomplish is to get someone to talk who would otherwise remain silent.

Besides, it's a spectrum of unwanted pressures. Solitary confinement is now on the torture list. Simply being in prison might as well be. And lessening an inmate's sentence if they agree to testify against someone else is of the same kind of bargaining where the target gets a choice, avoiding a worse outcome if they do what the authority figure wants.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The problem is that we have zero record of any intelligence successes resulting from torture at least back to 9/11. So, we don't really need to debate whether it might or might not work. We tried it and, in practice, it didn't work.

I'm gonna go way out on an undefendable limb and say that some prisoners definitely talked after "enhanced torture methods" were applied.
I very much doubt anyone would sign their name to a document saying they tortured anyone. It went from protected to prosecutable pretty rapidly.
I feel safe guessing that waterboarding yielded some results.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't think this is a very good example. Surely most of the time one doesn't have an immediate way of verifying the story... hence in the short term the torture stops regardless of the truth? Secondly, isn't there a risk of some kind of brutal version of clever hands here if the torturer does already have an idea of what the torturee is supposed to be hiding?

Yes, I agree. Just giving an example.

 

[marplots]

The problem is that we have zero record of any intelligence successes resulting from torture at least back to 9/11. So, we don't really need to debate whether it might or might not work. We tried it and, in practice, it didn't work.

That's only because "works" is defined as something torture doesn't do. I think I could make a strong case that incarceration doesn't cure criminal tendencies. If I make that the standard, I can then claim that prison doesn't work and should be abandoned.

 

[Armitage72]

Don't leave that hanging there...who?

John Ringo.
The Posleen War/Legacy of the Aldenata books have gotten more and more outrageous over the years.
In one of his author afterwards, he argued that the military should be free to attack civilians, because siege warfare is useless if soldiers can't attack civilians trying to flee a besieged city. Because siege warfare is such a common occurrence these days.

 

[Loss Leader]

I feel safe guessing that waterboarding yielded some results.

There's a 2,000 page intelligence report that says differently. And even Dick Cheney's best examples were debunked.

 

[The Don]

You need that with or without torture. Reliability is established, not by the method used to get "information," but by consilience. To "work," all torture has to accomplish is to get someone to talk who would otherwise remain silent.

I suppose that's one view, but if the information gained in this way is of such poor quality that it's actually net negative then torture hasn't achieved its objective.

Besides, it's a spectrum of unwanted pressures. Solitary confinement is now on the torture list. Simply being in prison might as well be. And lessening an inmate's sentence if they agree to testify against someone else is of the same kind of bargaining where the target gets a choice, avoiding a worse outcome if they do what the authority figure wants.

At least the last thing is not torture.

On this board, those arguing in favour of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" acknowledge that it is repugnant (as far as I recall no-one was fine with the use of torture) but that the ends justify the means.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm gonna go way out on an undefendable limb and say that some prisoners definitely talked after "enhanced torture methods" were applied.

Getting people to talk isn't the issue. Telling the good information from the bad is the problem.

Torture isn't designed to get the truth from someone. It's designed to get someone to tell the torturer what they want to hear to stop the torturer.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I suppose that's one view, but if the information gained in this way is of such poor quality that it's actually net negative then torture hasn't achieved its objective.



At least the last thing is not torture.

On this board, those arguing in favour of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" acknowledge that it is repugnant (as far as I recall no-one was fine with the use of torture) but that the ends justify the means.

It's morally indefensible but given the secretive nature of the people who plot to bomb innocents, it's necessary and I'm glad others are willing to do it, because I couldn't.
We're going to be dealing with drone attacks in the US within ten years, and I think that for many the moral line will be tested even further after a few very ugly attacks.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm still not sure that it doesn't work.
Just not reliably.

There is no interrogation technique which is perfectly reliable. And of course torture can (and often does) work. That's why we train people to try to resist it.

People will tell you what they think will stop the torture.
I'm sure that sometimes includes the information the interviewers want to know.

Indeed. Especially since the interviewers are often looking for information which they will be able to confirm (such as the location of a target). Tell them what they want, the torture stops. Tell them a lie, it only stops for as long as it takes to determine that you lied, then it starts again.

There are multiple reasons to avoid using torture. The "fact" that it doesn't work isn't one of them. It does work. The idea that it doesn't is a lie people tell themselves to try to avoid the difficult moral decisions by pretending that they're simple.

 

[sunmaster14]

Getting people to talk isn't the issue. Telling the good information from the bad is the problem.

Torture isn't designed to get the truth from someone. It's designed to get someone to tell the torturer what they want to hear to stop the torturer.

Oh, well then it's designed wrong. It should be designed to get the truth. Not too hard to do. The key is that the detainee doesn't actually know what the interrogator knows. Answers which are known or found out to be false are punished. Answers which are known or found out to be true are rewarded (and a reward can be the mitigation or termination of torture). It works the same way as interrogations without torture. The use of torture simply extends the range of punishments and rewards that can be applied.

 

[Upchurch]

It's morally indefensible but given the secretive nature of the people who plot to bomb innocents, it's necessary and I'm glad others are willing to do it, because I couldn't.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this and quite a bit that says it isn't true in any sense.

 

[The Don]

It's morally indefensible but given the secretive nature of the people who plot to bomb innocents, it's necessary and I'm glad others are willing to do it, because I couldn't.
We're going to be dealing with drone attacks in the US within ten years, and I think that for many the moral line will be tested even further after a few very ugly attacks.

Well that's the nub. By all accounts it's not necessary because it doesn't work.

 

[Upchurch]

There are multiple reasons to avoid using torture. The "fact" that it doesn't work isn't one of them. It does work. The idea that it doesn't is a lie people tell themselves to try to avoid the difficult moral decisions by pretending that they're simple.

Oh, it can work. It's just far less efficient than more conventional forms of interrogation.

Torture is good for when you need unreliable information and you don't care how long it takes to get it. Or if you just like hurting people*. It's good for that, too.





eta: * not a strawman.