Torture is Ineffective

[devilschaplain2]

The group Physicians for Human Rights has revealed that under the Bush administration, the CIA had been engaging in human experimentation on detainees, in order to find better methods of torturing other detainees. This included experiments with sleep deprivation, pain susceptibility and waterboarding without putting detainees into a coma or killing them. When I informed some people about this revelation we got into a torture discussion. So I figured I'd make a thread on the effectiveness of torture. It's been said that Khalid Sheik Mohammad was waterboarded something like 183 times or so and gave up "valuable information" about potential attacks in Southeast Asia and Los Angeles. However there is evidence that waterboarding is particularly ineffective and gives false leads:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html

There is also a matter of experienced interrogators coming out against torture and declaring it to be ineffective:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/13/politics/main5011381.shtml

www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2008/alert/313/

There's evidence that better treatment of detainees can make suspected terrorists more willing to yield information:
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html

Including an excellent article about interrogations of Nazi spies by Christopher Hitchens:
www.slate.com/id/2217583

And evidence that many people we capture are actually innocent to begin with and possess no relevant information:
dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/11/10/karpinski/index.html

www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/19/guantanamo-detainee-innocent.html

My friends and my own cousin maintain that waterboarding has, in fact, yielded relevant information by citing the case of KSM and statements by President Obama praising "enhanced interrogation techniques":
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/22/national/main4961520.shtml

But their main argument is the rather irrational, "But terrorists treat their captives brutally so why can't we?" argument, which really doesn't work. I'd personally rather see America destroyed than stoop to the level of Osama bin Laden and his cronies.

[katsuro]

I remember seeing a TV interview with an ex SAS bloke who said they no longer use torture because it doesn't work. According to him, basically one of two things tends to happen:

1) If the person being tortured doesn't know anything they will lie and tell you whatever s/he thinks you want to hear just so you'll stop. Wrong and made-up intel isn't exactly useful.

2) The person being tortured clams up and won't tell you goddamned thing, because basically you're an asshole and s/he doesn't want to tell you what you need to know because your an asshole and they're attitude is "go fuck yourself".

Apparently what works much better is to almost become chummy with the person you're interrogating. Make him/her like you and trust you so they want to tell you want you need to know, and it makes it more likely they will tell you the truth.

[Dragon Zachski]

I once heard that valuable information was given up not by torture... but by giving a diabetic POW sugar-free candy.

[Vene]

Jul 7, 2010 17:23:30 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

I once heard that valuable information was given up not by torture... but by giving a diabetic POW sugar-free candy.

Now why would you think that?
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html
Oh, that's why.

[Thejebusfire]

You mean torture doesn't work? No shit.

[Oriet]

Torture is good if you want someone to make a "confession," for sadistic pleasure, or to cheese off your enemies (and allies) so much that they won't consider peace talks and instead just keep fighting. If you want usable intel and to keep your allies, torture is one of the last things you want to do (it's still not as bad as using WMDs).

[devilschaplain2]

Jul 7, 2010 17:23:30 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

I once heard that valuable information was given up not by torture... but by giving a diabetic POW sugar-free candy.

Yeah that was one of my links.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Jul 7, 2010 17:37:40 GMT -5 Thejebusfire said:

You mean torture doesn't work? No shit.

My thoughts exactly. Sad thing is, no matter how many studies are released proving that torture is ineffective (not to mention immoral, barbaric, cruel, etc., etc.), bloodthirsty right-wing extremists will still claim that it's a viable option in dealing with terrorists -- or anyone who they feel resembles a terrorist, for that matter.

[devilschaplain2]

Jul 7, 2010 18:22:17 GMT -5 Oriet said:

Torture is good if you want someone to make a "confession," for sadistic pleasure, or to cheese off your enemies (and allies) so much that they won't consider peace talks and instead just keep fighting. If you want usable intel and to keep your allies, torture is one of the last things you want to do (it's still not as bad as using WMDs).

Again, one of the most common arguments in favor of torture is that our enemies torture and behead American soldiers and innocent civilians. Which they certainly do:






But I get a kick out of the fact that they think we should stoop to their level by using waterboarding, sleep deprivation, beatings, electrocution, rape and sexual torture, mock executions, stress positions, hot and cold environments, and attack dogs. It's almost as if they admire "the terrorists" because they're ballsy enough to phsyically and psychologically harm people.

[Amaranth]

Jul 7, 2010 14:30:41 GMT -5 @devilschaplain2 said:

But their main argument is the rather irrational, "But terrorists treat their captives brutally so why can't we?" argument, which really doesn't work.

I'm a fan of it. I mean, terrorists recruit civilians to blow themselves up in crowded markets and holy sites, so why can't we?

[tolpuddlemartyr]

Torture is there for the masses. Modern democracies want to be able to decry violations of human rights and feed the publics bloodlust at the same time. Nothing makes certain sections of the voting public "hard" like promising to be hard on the baddies.

[katsuro]

The whole "well they torture our people so we should torture theirs" argument is such bullshit, as are any arguments remotely similar. Call me crazy but I am not of the opinon that the logic of a 5 year old school child should be the foundation of our morals, ethical codes of cunduct and foreign policy.

[Amaranth]

Jul 7, 2010 18:42:09 GMT -5 katsuro said:

The whole "well they torture our people so we should torture theirs" argument is such bullshit, as are ny arguments remotely similar. Call me crazy but I am not of the opinon that the logic of a 5 year old school child should be the foundation of our morals, ethical codes of cunduct and foreign policy.

There is precedent though, in the supreme court ruling on Rubber v Glue.

[katsuro]

Jul 7, 2010 18:43:07 GMT -5 Amaranth said:

Jul 7, 2010 18:42:09 GMT -5 katsuro said:

The whole "well they torture our people so we should torture theirs" argument is such bullshit, as are ny arguments remotely similar. Call me crazy but I am not of the opinon that the logic of a 5 year old school child should be the foundation of our morals, ethical codes of cunduct and foreign policy.

There is precedent though, in the supreme court ruling on Rubber v Glue.

Oh well that makes it okay then doesn't it. The fact that a judge ruled in favour of stupid, immature lines of reasoning and logic totally shat over my point. I was wrong - the "he started it" defense is definately the best way for the world to work.

[Lady Renae]

Yeah, I'm fucked up as hell and even I realize that torture is meant for entertainment purposes only. You don't get anything useful, just a big mess. Well, less mess if you REALLY know what you're doing, but once again that's about maximizing the entertainment value, not getting good intel. Unless you're making a slave. Then it works only so far as they stay afraid of/Stockholmed to you.