ABC

We talk in here about if torture is OK under certain circumstances, and what exactly constitutes torture, where the line is, etc. But this sort of story brings to light another important aspect of the discussion - how effective is torture anyway? How often can you rely on what is said?

 

If you were being tortured, wouldn't you make up anything to make it stop? While the reasons are compelling, the whole save a million lives kind of thing, but bottom line, the information at best gives a false sense of accuracy to someone's already formed idea.

If you were being tortured, wouldn't you make up anything to make it stop? While the reasons are compelling, the whole save a million lives kind of thing, but bottom line, the information at best gives a false sense of accuracy to someone's already formed idea.

 

Study after study shows this to be true. Information gained under extreme duress is not even remotely reliable.

Study after study shows this to be true. Information gained under extreme duress is not even remotely reliable.

 

wouldn't want to participate in that study. "ok, we're gonna torture you for a while then you fill out this questionnaire. "

wouldn't want to participate in that study. "ok, we're gonna torture you for a while then you fill out this questionnaire. "

Like that scene in Princess Bride... "Now tell me... how do you feel? And remember, it is for posterity, so, be honest."

 

wouldn't want to participate in that study. "ok, we're gonna torture you for a while then you fill out this questionnaire. "

 

 

 

 

So out of curiousity, what exactly do the study's say is the most effective way to get information out of someone who is trained not to give it up?

So out of curiousity, what exactly do the study's say is the most effective way to get information out of someone who is trained not to give it up?

Don't you know that we just need to be nice these people and they will just magically start spilling all the Al Queda information?

 

 

John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. And since torture works (according to pro-torture people) he must have given up secret intel on the US. That should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. We cannot trust him.

John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. And since torture works (according to pro-torture people) he must have given up secret intel on the US. That should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. We cannot trust him.

you would be assuming he KNEW secret intel to gove up.

you would be assuming he KNEW secret intel to gove up.

Aren't we assuming the same when we torture others?

Aren't we assuming the same when we torture others?

It's all our fault. Us EVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLL Americans!

 

It's all our fault. Us EVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLL Americans!

Excellent point. I now realize that I was wrong on this issue.

John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. And since torture works (according to pro-torture people) he must have given up secret intel on the US. That should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. We cannot trust him.

 

No real answer?

 

Serious question here.

 

The US captures someone who they know has information regarding an imment terror attack on US soil. They have no idea who, what, or where. What is the most effective way to get the information from him? I always here about what doesn't work, but what actually does work? What is the US government missing?

No real answer?

 

Serious question here.

 

The US captures someone who they know has information regarding an imment terror attack on US soil. They have no idea who, what, or where. What is the most effective way to get the information from him? I always here about what doesn't work, but what actually does work? What is the US government missing?

I think the point to be made is that torture might be no more effective than, say, nothing. Or incentivizing. Cutting deals. Whatever. Point is, its not like torture is the magical key to the truth. And since it happens to be abhorrent and something that this country shouldn't be part of except in the most extreme of circumstances... maybe we should be trying other things.

 

No real answer?

 

Serious question here.

 

The US captures someone who they know has information regarding an imment terror attack on US soil. They have no idea who, what, or where. What is the most effective way to get the information from him? I always here about what doesn't work, but what actually does work? What is the US government missing?

I personally do not think there is solution that will guarantee that you get the 100% correct answer you are looking for from a detainee. Do you honestly think that one of the 9/11 hijackers would have talked if we caught them beforehand? They were prepared to die for their cause. Maybe I'm just naive.

Edited November 7, 200718 yr by BigSqwert

Excellent point. I now realize that I was wrong on this issue.

I think the point to be made is that torture might be no more effective than, say, nothing. Or incentivizing. Cutting deals. Whatever. Point is, its not like torture is the magical key to the truth. And since it happens to be abhorrent and something that this country shouldn't be part of except in the most extreme of circumstances... maybe we should be trying other things.

 

My point is, what IS more effective? I never have stated the only way to get anything done is to torture someone. I want to know what the most effective way to get information out of people is and why aren't we using it? We have studies that say torture doesn't work, so what are the studies saying is working? Why would would the US be dumb enough to torture people if something else worked better, and didn't violate the Geneva conventions?

 

Once again back to my example, what would be the most effective way to get information out of someone to prevent a terror attack?

My point is, what IS more effective? I never have stated the only way to get anything done is to torture someone. I want to know what the most effective way to get information out of people is and why aren't we using it? We have studies that say torture doesn't work, so what are the studies saying is working? Why would would the US be dumb enough to torture people if something else worked better, and didn't violate the Geneva conventions?

Once again back to my example, what would be the most effective way to get information out of someone to prevent a terror attack?

Because it's easier and more manly, and because the people who signed the Geneva conventions were weak p*&&ies.. And because, a lot of times, getting at the truth isn't what we want; we want to hear the answer we want to hear.

 

In most cases, I'd say the evidence strongly suggests that the non-violent methods, as outlined in the army field manuals, handbooks, and rules, work far better for extracting actual information. If you're asking for an entire procedure that works better, there are all the details you want. You can start training at your leisure.

My point is, what IS more effective? I never have stated the only way to get anything done is to torture someone. I want to know what the most effective way to get information out of people is and why aren't we using it? We have studies that say torture doesn't work, so what are the studies saying is working? Why would would the US be dumb enough to torture people if something else worked better, and didn't violate the Geneva conventions?

 

Once again back to my example, what would be the most effective way to get information out of someone to prevent a terror attack?

I honestly do not know.

 

 

Because it's easier and more manly, and because the people who signed the Geneva conventions were weak p*&&ies.. And because, a lot of times, getting at the truth isn't what we want; we want to hear the answer we want to hear.

 

In most cases, I'd say the evidence strongly suggests that the non-violent methods, as outlined in the army field manuals, handbooks, and rules, work far better for extracting actual information. If you're asking for an entire procedure that works better, there are all the details you want. You can start training at your leisure.

 

Good lord. Nevermind. I was trying to ask a serious question here, but between yours and BS's answers, I guess I shouldn't waste my time. For all the talk of wanting to get past hyperbole and rhetoric, that is exactly what I got here.

Good lord. Nevermind. I was trying to ask a serious question here, but between yours and BS's answers, I guess I shouldn't waste my time. For all the talk of wanting to get past hyperbole and rhetoric, that is exactly what I got here.

Only the first sentence was non-serious. The second sentence was not.

 

The biggest motivation for torture throughout history is and has always been to convince a person being tortured to tell you exactly what you want to hear. Whether it's some bit of information you want confirmed, or its wanting a confession to a crime you're convinced a person did, that has always been what torture has been most effective at. And, in many cases, because that is what torture is most effective at...if you believe that a person has information about an imminent terrorist attack, whether or not you're right, if you torture them, you are going to get information about an imminent terrorist attack, because that is what it will take to stop the torture. And you will act on that information whether or not it's accurate, and you will possibly wind up helping the attack happen by wasting resources.

 

As I pointed out, the Army field manual offers a detailed description of an actual appropriate and effective interrogation process. If a person is captured, they pretty much expect to be tortured, so they can prepare mentally for that. If you actually try to outmaneuver them mentally, you can break them much, much easier, without resorting to violence, because that is simply what works.

Edited November 7, 200718 yr by Balta1701

Good lord. Nevermind. I was trying to ask a serious question here, but between yours and BS's answers, I guess I shouldn't waste my time. For all the talk of wanting to get past hyperbole and rhetoric, that is exactly what I got here.

Which is exactly why I posted what I did. Then, that was followed up by how great of a retort the hyperbole responding to the hyperbole was.

 

My point was it's so easy to say what we are doing is "wrong" but is it really? Then of course, we (the US) are supposed to take the high road, which doesn't always work, either. But if we don't, then we're "eeeeviiilllllllll Americans", branded by our own living here, who in reality should know better but want to find contempt with every single policy our current President has. BS, I'm not saying that you do that entirely with every post, but it certainly walks up to those arguments in this case. That's why my hyperbolic response earlier.

 

 

George W. Bush, saying with a straight face "you can't be President and head of the military at the same time".

 

My point was it's so easy to say what we are doing is "wrong" but is it really?

 

Let's not lump every administration policy into the argument here and just talk about the torture issue at hand. Can you really be suggesting that America can torture in your name and that it can be justified?

 

Not in my name. That is not my America.

 

We prosecuted Japanese military officials as war criminals for waterboarding POWs in WWII. But now it's a gray area?? As a nation, we have previously stood against imperialism and faschism and communism without having to compromise principles regarding the ethics of torture. But now that global terrorists are the proclamed enemy, torture is on the table?