John Oliver discusses torture

[Belz...]

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that you can't get information from people using torture.

Careful: true information.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that you can't get information from people using torture. What people are saying is that there are more reliable and faster ways to get the information than torture. And that there is both scientific and logical evidence to support that.

I'm just going to keep chugging popcorn until I'm convinced by one side, here.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The discussion seems to be stuck between "it works" and "it doesn't work". I'm sure it works sometimes. Tie someone up, put some dentist's tools in front of him and ask him for his PIN number. Sure enough, he'll tell you. This isn't an endorsement, or an argument that it works most of the time or better than any other technique, but it does work sometimes.

Sure, but even this post of yours is proving my point. You might as well use the torture scene in Grand Theft Auto V as hypothetical proof that torture works.

ETA: You also have to consider that, just because you can imagine it might work reliably on your average citizen to extract low-value information, doesn't mean it will work as reliably in any other situation.

 

[Upchurch]

Careful: true information.

Yeah, you'll get a mess of bad information along with the good with torture and the signal-to-noise ratio is necessarily low, but I don't think anyone will deny that you can get true information from torture.

I'm just going to keep chugging popcorn until I'm convinced by one side, here.

There is a mountain of thread on the topic already with a ton of links and evidence and good arguments to support. Some of which I've copied to this thread.

It comes down to what is important to you.

Law and order? Torture is not only illegal, we prosecuted the Japanese for it following WWII.

Morality? That's a bit tougher to determine objectively since morality is necessarily subjective, but western society has held torture to be immoral for quite some time.

Practicality? I can show you link after link that shows that conventional interrogation methods are faster and more efficient than torture.

Revenge? No question. Torture wins at this hands down, especially if you also have a sadistic streak.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm noticing a not-so-curious lack of actual evidence in support for the idea that "torture works" (ed. reliably enough to be "worth it"). It just seems to be an article of faith for some that it does.

I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there always exist interrogation techniques which work better. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We all understand that the threat of punishment and the promise of reward is a powerful incentive for humans to cooperate or comply with authority. We learn this as children, and we use such strategies with our own children. Indeed, our entire society is built around punishment for bad behavior and reward for good behavior. The idea that the threat of extreme pain infliction would not be successful at improving compliance, when we all know that more moderate forms of punishment improve compliance requires a logical explanation and strong evidence.

Ziggurat has already given the example of Guy Fawkes, where extreme torture worked, but milder forms of torture did not. For my part, I'm pretty sure that torture would work on me, whereas techniques like rapport building would not. My strategy would be simply to refuse to talk unless forced to under threat of extreme discomfort. I doubt I'm unique in that regard, but I doubt I have any evidence that people here would accept.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oliver also played a clip of an agent demonstrating the alternative coercive form of interrogation. Basically along the lines of: "You are now ###### for the rest of your life. Your life is over but we can do something for you if you want it. Do you have a wife that will need some assistance now that you are gone? Do you have children you'd like to see get a good education? A brother in need of a job? You can do some good for your family and they're going to need it. All we require from you is a few names, locations and dates."

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

So far no one has even indicated that they know the difference between an interview and an interrogation, which does not speak well for the familiarity of the debaters with the subject material. Can anyone provide a definition of torture?
Are we talking the use of harsh language or the use of a blowtorch?

Please pass the popcorn, Belz...

 

[sunmaster14]

Yeah, you'll get a mess of bad information along with the good with torture and the signal-to-noise ratio is necessarily low, but I don't think anyone will deny that you can get true information from torture.


There is a mountain of thread on the topic already with a ton of links and evidence and good arguments to support. Some of which I've copied to this thread.

It comes down to what is important to you.

Law and order? Torture is not only illegal, we prosecuted the Japanese for it following WWII.

And torture should be illegal. As should blowing up a dozen innocent civilians to get at one terrorist. But, just as there are times when the legal thing to do is immoral, there are times when the moral thing to do is illegal.

Morality? That's a bit tougher to determine objectively since morality is necessarily subjective, but western society has held torture to be immoral for quite some time.

It's clearly moral to torture one evil person to save ten innocent people. This is particularly so, if one is going to argue that it's moral to kill ten innocent people in order to kill one evil person.

Practicality? I can show you link after link that shows that conventional interrogation methods are faster and more efficient than torture.

I doubt that. Up until now, you haven't given me any links that show that.

Revenge? No question. Torture wins at this hands down, especially if you also have a sadistic streak.

I honestly don't think that revenge or sadism played any role at all in the authorization of the enhanced interrogation program.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's clearly moral to torture one evil person to save ten innocent people.

Clearly, it's what Jack Bauer has done plenty of times to save the day.



BTW, Jack Bauer is fiction, just like your hypothetical situation.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, but even this post of yours is proving my point. You might as well use the torture scene in Grand Theft Auto V as hypothetical proof that torture works.

Are you seriously suggesting that my example is unrealistic ?

ETA: You also have to consider that, just because you can imagine it might work reliably on your average citizen to extract low-value information, doesn't mean it will work as reliably in any other situation.

Irrelevant. The claim is that it. Does. Not. Work. I am addressing that claim, not some alternate claim that you can imagine.

It comes down to what is important to you.

No, it doesn't. That would be a moral judgment, which I am uninterested in discussing here for several reasons; first, because I think we are all in agreement anyway; second because it's personal and therefore unlikely to change; and third because I loathe all forms of torture and cannot tolerate their use, and so my conclusion is already reached on this topic.

I'm much more interested in the factual discussion.

 

[sunmaster14]

So far no one has even indicated that they know the difference between an interview and an interrogation, which does not speak well for the familiarity of the debaters with the subject material.

Interview is to interrogation as rough treatment is to torture.

Can anyone provide a definition of torture?

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).

 

[sunmaster14]

Clearly, it's what Jack Bauer has done plenty of times to save the day.



BTW, Jack Bauer is fiction, just like your hypothetical situation.

Right. It simply is impossible for such a situation to arise. Inconceivable really, although I have already conceived of it. I mean it's almost as implausible as hijacking airplanes and flying them into skyscrapers to knock them down.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If only there were some internationally agreed upon definition of torture......

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are you seriously suggesting that my example is unrealistic ?

I'm saying that it's not even an anecdote; it's a hypothetical. What I think about it's chances of actually happening is kind of irrelevant. Surely, if it were as possible as you (and likely others) imagine it to be, you'd be posting real-life examples.

I actually don't think your scenario is unrealistic. I just find incredibly bizarre that no one seems to want to actually support even that weak argument with a single real-world case. Why keep trotting out "realistic" hypothetical scenarios when you're so sure that there must be actual instances available?

The entire argument in favor of torture on this forum seems built entirely within the heads of the people arguing in favor of torture. Meanwhile, the folks arguing against have actual studies and a report that even the CIA's efforts produced nothing of value (that wasn't already known beforehand).

 

[Belz...]

I'm saying that it's not even an anecdote; it's a hypothetical.

Yes, like saying that if you go to the grocery store tomorrow and take a carton of milk to the cashier, you'll be asked for some money. It's a hypothetical but it's so likely to be true that I would hesitate to call it that. I don't know about you, but I would give my PIN number under my scenario.

Surely, if it were as possible as you (and likely others) imagine it to be, you'd be posting real-life examples.

That is an entirely unfair argument, and is beneath you.

The entire argument in favor of torture seems built entirely within the heads of the people arguing in favor of torture.

Who's arguing in favour of torture here ? Not me, certainly, and not Zig. Who are these hypothetical posters you speak of ?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That is an entirely unfair argument, and is beneath you.

Asking for real evidence is now unfair? And beneath me? Dear lord... I'm flattered that you think so highly of me that I could divine the truthfulness of a proposition even without evidence, but your faith is misplaced. And it also misses the point by quite a lot.

 

[Belz...]

Asking for real evidence is now unfair? And beneath me?

Ok, now you're just plain twisting my words. Read my post again, and the sentence I was responding to, and stop trying to make me say something I didn't. I'm starting to think that it wasn't beneath you at all.

 

[angrysoba]

Doesn't really matter. If publishing papers and getting grants is what they need to do to be in the field, then that's what they do: they will act in order to publish papers and get grants.

Tell me honestly: do you think a paper that says torture works would be easier or harder to get past peer review? Do you think a funding agency will respond more favorably to a researcher who shows that torture works, or to a researcher who shows that torture doesn't work? What's your honest expectation of the peer reaction to a researcher who writes that torture works versus one who writes that torture doesn't work? How do you think the public will react?

If, after consideration of these questions, you honestly think that scientists examining this question will be disinterested, then you're delusional.

I was thinking something similar while reading this thread.

This might be a bit cheeky of me, but I can imagine that if a scientist got up in front of a conference and declared that torture may indeed work and that it might be worth investigating the subject further, then she may find herself out of a job while on the plane home, with her university proudly declaring on its website that it has always been and always will be against torture and that the scientists' statements made her future association with the university untenable.

This would not be a slight on the scientific method, but may reveal that those who hold the purse strings have an image to uphold.

 

[angrysoba]

I should think that they will respond to a conclusion that fits the data.

But that assumes that whoever is funding scientific research X is also disinterested, and that's not a safe assumption in my opinion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Ziggurat]

I was thinking something similar while reading this thread.

This might be a bit cheeky of me, but I can imagine that if a scientist got up in front of a conference and declared that torture may indeed work and that it might be worth investigating the subject further, then she may find herself out of a job while on the plane home, with her university proudly declaring on its website that it has always been and always will be against torture and that the scientists' statements made her future association with the university untenable.

This would not be a slight on the scientific method, but may reveal that those who hold the purse strings have an image to uphold.

Larry Summers lost his job for less.