…and this is a 
Torture — what's it good for?
Category: Politics
Posted on: December 29, 2007 10:09 AM, by PZ Myers
One little post about waterboarding seems to have stirred up the mob, but at least the majority seem to agree that it is torture. How could it not be? It's a process for causing pain and suffering, nothing more. At least the commenters here, even the ones I disagree with most strongly, are more honest than our politicians, many of whom seem to be in a state of denial.
But then the argument becomes whether torture is a useful procedure. I'm going to surprise some people and agree that torture is an extremely powerful tool. It's just useless for gathering information. There's just no way you can trust information gotten while ripping somebody's fingernails off with a pair of pliers — they'll scream anything to get you to stop.
Here is all that torture is good for: inspiring fear in a population. If you want it widely known that your ruling regime is utterly ruthless and doesn't care about individuals, all you have to do is scoop up random people suspected of anti-government activities, hold them for a few weeks, and return them as shattered wrecks with mangled limbs, while treating the monsters who would do such a thing as respected members of the ruling clique, who are immune from legal prosecution. The message gets out fast that one does not cross the government.
So, yeah, if you're a tyrant in Uzbekistan who is holding control through force of arms, fear is a useful part of the apparatus of control, and torture is a great idea, as are barbaric executions, heads on pikes, and bullets to the back of the head.
When the US government announces it's support for torture, they aren't talking about intelligence gathering: they are simply saying "Fear us." They are taking the first step on the road to tyranny.
The real problem is that fear isn't a good tool to use in a democratic society. We are supposed to be shareholders in our government; when a process of oppression is endorsed by our legislators and president, we should recognize that they are trying to set themselves apart from the ordinary citizenry, and it's time to rebel…before the goon squads come to your neighborhood. Anyone who supports torture is a traitor to the democratic form of government, and should be voted out of office, if not impeached.
And I know some are going to crawl out of the woodwork to claim it's OK in this case because the US is mainly trying to torture non-citizens, outsiders and foreigners — but then what it represents is an announcement to the rest of the world that the American superpower is not planning to be a benevolent member of the community of nations.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Exactly. It's about domination.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 29, 2007 10:12 AM
Exactly right (and with that comment, I destroy my chances of a political career).
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 29, 2007 10:15 AM
Australia has traditionally allied with the US to fight the kind of people who torture. So why shouldn't we now ally with someone to fight YOU?
"They do it, so we can do it" only works when you and your opponent are the only people on earth.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | December 29, 2007 10:16 AM
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 10:18 AM
A couple further thoughts. In my Race and Ethnicity classes I deal with the ways that sex is used as a means of dominating a population, and draw explicitly upon Abu Ghraib. Whether or not the sexual abuse and torture was intended to intimidate the entire population, a large part of it was about harming "those people," and the effect was that the population learned about the abuse...news spread that the Americans were willing and able to do anything. Abu Ghraib served as a tool of intimidation and domination, and that's it.
Then again, it was just a "fraternity prank," right Jamie?
Posted by: MAJeff | December 29, 2007 10:20 AM
A second American Revolution is pretty needed. And, don't forget, Blake, that when Jefferson wrote the Declaration he destroyed his own chances of developing a political career in the British Empire.
Anyway, denialism of torture is even worst than the Bush's defense of torture. Some European governments (like Spanish or French governments) used torture but they always denied it: through a tight control on police and judiciary institution, they can block virtually any denounce of torture.
Posted by: Dídac | December 29, 2007 10:21 AM
Coel, you are a monster. You are searching for excuses to torture other human beings.
"Only" an encryption key is your entry to "only" whatever you think you want, the next time around.
Posted by: True Bob | December 29, 2007 10:24 AM
Coel- that's just a variant of the stupid ticking-nuke "thought" "experiment" so often pulled out of their asses by torture proponents. In the real world, as opposed to, say, 24, the fallaciousness of keeping torture around as an option all the time (whereupon it will inevitably be used for purposes not openly admitted whenn the policy was adopted), just in case some highly implausible hypothetical scenario carefully constructed to "justify" it should actually come to pass, ought to be obvious.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 10:25 AM
PZ wrote: "And I know some are going to crawl out of the woodwork to claim it's OK in this case because the US is mainly trying to torture non-citizens, outsiders and foreigners..."
Yep, we're only doing it to shady characters like Icelandic women who once overstayed a student visa. What a beacon for hope and justice we are!
Posted by: gg | December 29, 2007 10:28 AM
To True Bob and Steve LaBonne,
By the way, I'm not advocating the use of torture, I just want the arguments against it to be good ones rather than bad ones. It seems to me that the claim "torture doesn't work" breaks down when the answers are readily verifiable.
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 10:29 AM
To which I already replied that the cases where it's claimed to "work" are always purpose-built hypotheticals. For all real-world purposes PZ is correct.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 10:34 AM
Coel, to be able to torture someone (assuming you find a way of torturing and getting valid information) requires a proficiency in torture. Gaining a proficiency requires practice. Who are you going to practice on, and how will you simultaneously "only" torture ticking time bombs? The paradox is you need a continuous torture regime to be any good at it, which eliminates the ticking time bomb scenario. Once that machinery is in place, it will be abused.
Posted by: True Bob | December 29, 2007 10:36 AM
Waterboarding has been considered torture at least as long back as when it was used during the American occupation of the Philippines in 1900.
It has been torture ever since. It is only the criminals in the Bush regime that think it is not. Maybe we should bring back crucifixion to please the jesus freaks.
Posted by: bernarda | December 29, 2007 10:38 AM
Steve LaBonne (#11):
Darn. I guess that rules out my "His 24 Dark Materials" scenario, severing a child from her dæmon to gain power over the Dust. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 29, 2007 10:39 AM
Impeached, surely. I would add that if it wouldn't happen, the US constitution would have to be amended.
[I suspect that the purpose is to leave it as short and powerful as possible, but it would not hurt if some basic rules were explicitly established, such as a blanket ban on torture, as it would make short (or not so short, as in the current case) transgressions more difficult.]
AFAIK it doesn't work that way. People who study intelligence operations have IIRC claimed to have study results that show that it is entirely useless, statistically.
You are grasping for straws that isn't even there.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | December 29, 2007 10:40 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 10:41 AM
Maybe I overstated. Perhaps I'm remembering intelligence community members who have gone over their own results. Never the less, if such data exists, it should be considered, shouldn't it? After all, "the answers are readily verifiable".
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | December 29, 2007 10:47 AM
Whilst I agree that that difficult-to-solve easy-to-verify problems can occur, they are rare in practice. Reality is rarely as simple as the subset sum problem.
Even the "straightforward" examples are far more complicated than they may at first appear. For example, in a ticking-bomb scenario (whereby the authorities know that a bomb has been laid, but don't know where it is), many complications can occur. Most obviously, the suspect may not where the bomb is. Terrorists generally operate in very tight cells, with each member being given only the minimum of information; even the builder of the bomb may not know the target.
Another major problem is that information rarely has an obvious limit. The suspect may cooperate fully with the disarming of one bomb, whilst holding back information about a second. Of course, the interrogators could demand information about a second bomb as a matter of course, but then the suspect will realize that no amount of cooperation will stop the torture, and thus stop cooperating. (There is no point telling of the second bomb if torture will then commence for a hypothetical third bomb.)
Posted by: hyperdeath | December 29, 2007 10:48 AM
One of the staff of an independently student-run newspaper at my school actually did a huge investigative piece on waterboarding, including testing it on himself. One of the points he made was that with saran-wrap and blindfolded, he lasted 4 seconds. CIA officers who receive training to withstand torture techniques rarely last more than 15 seconds. Their victims, on the other hand, tend to be subjected to intermittent waterboarding for up to 30 minutes at a time.
If the people performing waterboarding on some hapless victim can't take it, it takes a sick bastard to turn around and force another human to endure the same techniques.
Posted by: MexiPakiJew | December 29, 2007 10:51 AM
Here is all that torture is good for: inspiring fear in a population.
I'd say the main use, but not the only one. It is also useful for obtaining false confessions from convenient scapegoats.
Posted by: Joe Bob | December 29, 2007 10:55 AM
What is very scary to me is knowing that there is a Blackwater or its equivalent that has been given the green light to torture, operating in secret, completely unaccountable to the people of the United States.
That seems like the end of democracy to me.
The 9/11 terrorists did accomplish something.
They triggered the basest impulses in the leadership of this country. The impulse to strike out blindly at one's enemies, to solve problems with violence, to answer mass death with mass death.
I hope we can overcome this absolutely abysmal period in our history.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 29, 2007 10:56 AM
I'm not so sure, I suspect that plenty of people (such as me) would succumb to inexpert torture.
I think, overall, that the "it doesn't work" argument is a poor one to use: torture can work to some extent sometimes; so basing opposition to torture on that premise is open to rebuttal.
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 10:56 AM
PZ wrote:
It's also useful for brainwashing and enforcing the perpetrators confirmation bias. They use to torture confessions out of witches and apparently got some people to believe they were witches.
Some forms of exorcism seem to involve torture.
And, in the right circumstances, you can get information from people -- but your victim has to think you know more than you actually do know because that's the information you'll get.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 29, 2007 10:58 AM
PZ (if I may be so familiar), that's not only an interesting and sustainable assertion, but leads to another strong argument against torture. If the goal of torture is indeed to install fear and compliance in a larger population, it could or should fall under the rubric of collective punishment, which is a violation of both the laws of war and the "quaint" Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: ddt | December 29, 2007 10:58 AM
Coel, a little Googling will soon show you that the question has actually been seriously investigated, and that there is real evidence, and a large body of expert opinion, that PZ is correct.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 11:00 AM
Coel wrote:
Not when they don't believe you when you tell them the truth.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 29, 2007 11:01 AM
Excellent post. This analysis is spot on. Thanks for putting it all so clearly and concisely.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | December 29, 2007 11:01 AM
"torture can work to some extent sometimes"
Coel
So can astrology.
Posted by: Laen | December 29, 2007 11:01 AM
We torture for three reasons.
1. If our enemies know that if captured we will torture them to death, then our enemies will be strongly encouraged to fight to the death, and never surrender. This understanding will be strengthened if our soldiers shoot the wounded, and it will encourage more of our enemies to join the fight.
2. Having our agents torture prisoners will eliminate whatever humanity our agents started with. Additionally, it will make our agents utterly loyal to the government, and will turn them against civilians in general, heavily polarizing them.
3. When the national government uses torture, they invite emulation by local governments, which are the police in this country. Torture at the local level binds the police to the federal government, terrorizes the citizenry, and enhances in-group solidarity among the government forces.
Nobody in their right mind would use torture to get at truth, and neither would most people in their wrong mind.
@Coel
What about torture when asking for an encryption key, you ask.
You torture the guy, he gives up the key. You give it to me to verify and I get back to you quickly and tell you it didn't work. So you torture him some more, and we go round and round and eventually he dies, or his mind is destroyed, in which case he's just as useless.
My money says you're not clever enough to realize you'd need to check my work yourself. For all you know, I'm a two-fingered typist hiding his dyslexia, and I can't manage the 8-character password on my own computer (which is why some systems allow passwords as short as 6 characters, for the digital dodos out there). If you are really smart, you won't even trust your own work, you'll have others duplicate your efforts and see if they all come up with the same result.
People who resort to torture are too undisciplined to adequately check their own work or check on their results, and should never be trusted to do any work at all without heavy and constant supervision and monitoring. The US has no controls in place when using torture, and so all of the torturers and their support staffs should all be dragged out and shot.
Posted by: Globle Warren Terrism | December 29, 2007 11:04 AM
PZ: "They are taking the first step on the road to tyranny."
Unfortunately, it is a very short road.
It is also subjective. We will not proportionately agree on the tyranny until we proportionately experience it for ourselves. Until them many/most of those who do not call it (sic) "justice" :-(
How ironic that America is distinguishing itself in a manner that is so inconsistent with how it distinguished itself in the past :-(
Posted by: Ben Abbott | December 29, 2007 11:06 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 11:11 AM
There's a simple principle: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people".
In this country, this principle has been completely inverted. People are afraid of their government to a degree almost unprecedented.
Posted by: Ashutosh | December 29, 2007 11:13 AM
Professor Myers,
"inspiring fear in a population"
c'est exact! The world but as importantly the American populace knows the US government will not respoect their rights. And a government which is willing to torture "enemy combatants" can easily slide into using torture on homegrown combatants of every type. All one need do is define "terrorism" as sowing discontent in the Government and then anyone who opposses your policies or has the temerity to vote against you can be dealt with...
Posted by: Gene | December 29, 2007 11:13 AM
As PZ says, people being tortured will say anything to make it stop. In the above situation the most likely thing to say to make it stop is the truth.
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:13 AM
As disturbing as these topics are, PZ, I'm so glad you posted these two blog entries.
If this is true, then torture is nothing more or less than a form of terrorism.
(It may also be good for satisfying the sadistic urges of certain individuals, but that doesn't undermine the point.)
The current US administration has displayed features of a totalitarian regime. I spent years cutting Bush and the neocons slack for having had the misfortune of having 9/11 dumped in their laps, but I've found that to be a fruitless, thankless, frustrating approach. If anything, 9/11 was a blessing for them, for it gave them a tremendous balance of political capital with which they could finance many of the policies and actions they were going to try to implement anyway. Exhibit A: Iraq.
I realize that one man's opinion doesn't prove anything, but I find this statement compelling nonetheless:
Those are the words of a man who has more than a little first-hand experience with the use and abuse of executive power: John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon.
Posted by: Kseniya | December 29, 2007 11:14 AM
So Coel, would you rape the child of a suspect until they gave you the encryption key? How many times would you rape the child, when would you stop?
Anyone claiming to be a civilized person should find torture just as abhorrent as the above scenario.
I cant believe Im even discussing this with Americans. Truly sad.
Posted by: bpower | December 29, 2007 11:18 AM
The thing about the "encription key" scenario is that it changes nothing - the dangers of bad information and of killing the person are still present.
if you are faced with a "ticking bomb" scenario, then it's useful for the person to hold out until the time-sensitive information is no longer useful. And, obviously, the reward for lying is even greater since it provides temporary respite. If the info is not time sensitive, then it's smarter to use more conventional methods.
So no, I don't buy Coel's scenario.
Posted by: IanR | December 29, 2007 11:20 AM
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:21 AM
I'm reminded of an interview on NPR years ago of a young female officer who was in charge of a prison camp in Afghanistan(?). She was able to effect change by treating the prisoners fairly, giving them decent accommodations, good food, interacting with them--you know, treating them like human beings. Attitudes began to change, the prisoners started to open up and relate, etc.
I don't remember the details, but the army came in and changed everything; they weren't having any of it. They put a "regular" guy in charge, and soon everything was back to normal with lots of suspicion and hate on both sides. Business as usual.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 29, 2007 11:22 AM
Which means, Coel, that there is nowhere near sufficient evidence supporting your position to justify any civilized person in entertaining even for a moment the idea that torture should be an allowable option.
You're just tying yourself in knots here, trying to hang on to your preconceived conclusion. You remind me of the advocates of "scientific" racism in another thread.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 11:25 AM
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:25 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 11:27 AM
Sadly, I can't say what I think of the American regime, as Bush can authorise that non-US citizens are kidnapped from anywhere in the world and tortured.
So a sane person keeps his mouth shut about those people in the White House.
Posted by: Steven Carr | December 29, 2007 11:29 AM
Most spies and spooks before the present thuglicans weren't all that interested in torturing suspects.
That is because torture doesn't yield reliable information. Someone being tortured will say anything to stop it. Therefore, a taxi driver will know where bin Laden is, who was on the grassy knoll, where Elvis is, the location of the Lost Dutchmans goldmine, and the missing parts of Shakespeares plays. Plus anything else you want to know.
Besides which they have questioning techniques that might not be too pleasant based on human psychology that work reasonably well. Some people especially from densely networked, high density cultures can't take isolation for very long and so forth.
And terrorist and spy organizations are built to be torture resistant. Cells and info on need to know basis. Most information has a short time value. Reconfiguration upon capture of members. Humans have been playing this game for centuries and only the competent survive.
The main reason we torture people is just to torture people. It is not a means to an end, it is the end. The torturers and their masters have disgraced and damaged the US in the eyes of the world for little gain.
Posted by: raven | December 29, 2007 11:30 AM
Coel wrote:
Only if the safety procedures followed are crap.
If you have to absolutely transport data I've got a nice memory stick with encryption. 3 failed attempts mean bye bye data.
If you have to store data use multiple encrypted directories. Ever read what TrueCrypt has for defenses? You torture me to get me to spill the beans on the key code. I 'break' and hand you one that seems to decrypt the TrueCrypt partition. How do you know I haven't used the hidden volume trick that comes standard with TrueCrypt? How do you know I haven't used the hidden volume trick multiple times? When do you stop "dunking" me? What about an upgraded version of TrueCrypt where there is a self destruct password?
Never send data using push mechanisms, always use a pull mechanism. Newsgroups + steganography + smut or spam are the perfect example of this way of distributing information.
These 3 elementary steps in data security totally block easy verification of encryption keys due either not having the data or you having to risk that the key is wrong and will erase the data you are looking for.
Posted by: Who Cares | December 29, 2007 11:32 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 11:32 AM
The problem is that our current Administration is a pack of soulless ghouls who have no values whatsoever, let alone American values.
Posted by: Bobby | December 29, 2007 11:32 AM
OK, but what about the case where the answer is quickly verifiable, such as when asking for an encryption key? Seems to me that torture could easily be effective then.
Torture only seems effective to moral degenerates who want to be able to torture; they are the only sort of people motivated to try to imagine scenarios in which it might work. Once you figure out that you might be able to get an encryption key by torturing a bad guy, you've figured out that you might be able to get an encryption key by tortuirng a good guy who isn't providing it because he's been told his family will be murdered if he does. You can go on to figure out other fun scenarios in which torture of just about anyone is justified for just about any end.
People who approve of torture, in any circumstance, are bad people. But please don't torture them.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Coel wrote (#10):
Coel is right. If we rely on arguing that torture doesn't work, then if anyone can demonstrate that torture does work, even under some narrowly-defined conditions, our argument breaks down.
Torture is immoral, so we simply should not engage in it.
Many other arguments are valid--we disgrace ourselves by torturing prisoners, we put our own people at greater risk of torture when we torture others, etc.--but our central case must be that torture is simply wrong, and we must not do it.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | December 29, 2007 11:33 AM
"As I said, I am not defending or advocating torture; I am suggesting that one often-quoted argument against it is dubious."
Coel, replace the word torture with something like slavery in the above sentence and you might get an idea of grotesque you seem right now.
Posted by: bpower | December 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Amazing! One of the faults of this site is that there is often trendy PC-leftist dogma that it is considered heresy to question.
Where did I suggest that torture should be allowed? As I said (and I really do mean it) I am not defending torture and am not suggesting it should be allowed. But I do like arguments to be good ones rather than highly dubious ones.
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Here's some additional thoughts:
1. France, Isreal and the UK at various times in the past have used torture and have reported that it does not work.
2. Our esteemed AG Mukasey and his deputy refuse to specifically comment on waterboarding because, during the Filipino insurgency (term used on purpose) at the turn of the 20th century, US Officers used it against Filipinos, it was determined to be torture and those officers were courtmartialed. Mukasey & his boys don't want to open their mouths because they know their history and they would be put in the position of either explaining why then and not now or again courtmartialing Bush lackeys. Rock/hard place.
Posted by: Pineyman | December 29, 2007 11:34 AM
One of the faults of this site is that there is often trendy PC-leftist dogma that it is considered heresy to question.Brilliant- he immediately demonstrates just how close is the resemblance I pointed out.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 11:35 AM
Posted by: Bobby | December 29, 2007 11:36 AM
I think, overall, that the "it doesn't work" argument is a poor one to use:
It's not a poor argument, because it's factual, and has been used repeatedly by intelligence experts.
torture can work to some extent sometimes
Read the thread title: "What is torture good for?" It's not good for something that it rarely can achieve.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:39 AM
We can use torture. Just once we do so, we can no longer claim moral superiority to the enemy, or anyone else. With the innocent civilians killed in Iraq, the Blackwater death squads, and torture, how precisely are we any better than Hussein?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2007 11:40 AM
The neocons support torture not to save the world but to save their world. In their world, terrorists are ubiquitous and imminent. In their world, national intelligence agents know about "ticking time bomb situations" ahead of time, can discern valid threats from rumoured ones, and are confident about exact deadlines. In their world, interrogators have access to prisoners who just happen to have the information needed to thwart the threat and can distinguish that information from irrelevant information provided during torture. In their world, the correct information is actionable and can be obtained in time to stop the event. It's a bittersweet world to live in, but it is one pre-framed to justify torture. Unfortunately, those of us in the real world have to live with uncertainty and moral limits, but at least, we do not have al Qaeda moles residing next door to all of us.
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 29, 2007 11:40 AM
bpower writes:
Why do I seem grotesque? If you are against something are you obliged to support bad arguments against it as well as good arguments?
I have several times argued against bad arguments against creationism; that isn't because I support creationism but because I think that using bad arguments will in the end be counterproductive.
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:41 AM
Now any evil at all comes pre-approved, so long as it is directed at "them". What do you suppose people would think if "they" were waterboarding our people? No problem, it's fair play?
Posted by: Bobby | December 29, 2007 11:42 AM
As PZ says, people being tortured will say anything to make it stop. In the above situation the most likely thing to say to make it stop is the truth.
You're assuming he knows the truth.
Look, this issue has been explored, in depth, many times before, by people who aren't dimwitted. "Torture -- what's it good for?" -- not for gathering intelligence information.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:44 AM
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:44 AM
Alternatively, one will find a lot of conflicting claims, often by people with an axe to grind one way or the other, and nothing properly definitive.
You haven't even looked, have you, jerk off?
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:46 AM
Hmm, did Jamie change names?
I love how PC and lefty get tossed out when we're talking about a practice that is unethical, worthless for gathering useful intelligence, and used primarily as a means of domination.
I'd rather be a PC lefty than an intellectually and ethically bankrupt "centrist."
Posted by: MAJeff | December 29, 2007 11:47 AM
Posted by: Bobby | December 29, 2007 11:48 AM
Steve LaBonne said
Yes, I noticed and deliberately highlighted the close resemblence in your reaction.Are you struggling with the difference between "I think we should use torture" and "I don't find this particular argument against torture convincing and would prefer that opposition to torture be on a sounder footing"?
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:49 AM
I am suggesting that one often-quoted argument against it is dubious.
I suggest that you haven't the mental capacity to make the judgment. Your final fallback is the false claim that the consensus among intelligence officials doesn't exist: "one will find a lot of conflicting claims, often by people with an axe to grind one way or the other, and nothing properly definitive". You're an ignorant troll.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:49 AM
We are (or were) a scientific, knowledge based society. Not too surprising, the number cruncher double domes have looked at the effectiveness of torture in a quantitative and qualitative way. The actual data says it isn't particularly useful. Put some key words in search engines and read it yourself. With any luck the government seives won't pick your search up and you won't be tortured to see why you are interested in the effectiveness of torture.
Covert organizations are designed to be torture resistant. That is one of the reasons for the use of suicide commandos. You can torture a scrap of bone and a few feet of intestines for days and get nowhere.
Posted by: raven | December 29, 2007 11:50 AM
This is a valid point, and I've encountered it elsewhere, in debates about capital punishment. The argument against that relies on the (rare) execution of innocents can break down if and when it can be shown that the number of innocents executed approaches zero. A more effective, unconditional and immutable argument goes something like this: "Our central case must be that capital punishment is simply wrong, and we must not do it."
Posted by: Kseniya | December 29, 2007 11:52 AM
Coel is right. If we rely on arguing that torture doesn't work, then if anyone can demonstrate that torture does work, even under some narrowly-defined conditions, our argument breaks down.
Uh, no, the claim that torture isn't useful for gathering information -- it isn't reliable. This is a claim widely held in the intelligence community. Coming up with thought experiment scenarios where torture might conceivably yield information doesn't make it reliable.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:53 AM
Coel, care to address my arguments (post #45)against your "Torture works to get an encryption key"-argument seeing that you seem do demand specific counters to your arguments.
Posted by: Who Cares | December 29, 2007 11:54 AM
More leftist dogma.
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
Posted by: bpower | December 29, 2007 11:55 AM
! One of the faults of this site is that there is often trendy PC-leftist dogma that it is considered heresy to question.
Like I said, a troll. You right wing jackasses are so predictable.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:55 AM
To several people,
I'd like to say that I'm impressed by the pointers you've given me to definitive studies showing that torture does not work. I really would like to say that! However, so far I can't, since there haven't been any such pointers.
Posted by: Coel | December 29, 2007 11:56 AM
No torture needed - yet were the prisoners traitors? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff
Posted by: True Bob | December 29, 2007 11:56 AM
But I do like arguments to be good ones rather than highly dubious ones.
Then why are you making a highly dubious argument? Not just dubious, but multidimensionally stupid.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 11:56 AM
Crikey, Coel, do we have to google it for you? If you were truly curious and not agenda-driven, you would have already done this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=torture+effectiveness&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Posted by: True Bob | December 29, 2007 11:58 AM
I was in a similar discussion on another site a while back and an ex-forces commenter (for whom I have developed considerable regard) made a distinction between troops in combat who, say, capture an enemy combatant and want to know from him if the area they are entering is booby-trapped, and trained torture specialists behind the lines who have a long-term plan for breaking down the next subject on their list.
His point was that there is a real difference between a soldier in combat who tells a captive (who presumably has been captured alive because he values his skin)'If you lie and get my mates killed I will beat the crap out of you' and a government sanctioned torture centre with all the bells and whistles. He considered the first to be what soldiers will always do when their personal survival is an immediate issue(and if that meant a subsequent court-martial, so be it) whereas the second was unsoldierly and degraded whatever you were supposed to be fighting for.
I found his point persuasive.
Posted by: Don | December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
Then where is the definitive evidence? (That's a genuine question by the way.)
It's no more genuine than the same question about evolution from creationists. As you were told, "a little Googling will soon show you that the question has actually been seriously investigated, and that there is real evidence, and a large body of expert opinion, that PZ is correct." Go educate yourself and stop trolling.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
Welcome to the wonderful world of hidden volumes.
Posted by: Cairnarvon | December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
What a liar. You were simply showing your true colors by dragging out that old chestnut about stifling "left-wing" PC.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 29, 2007 12:01 PM
I may have it backwards, but isn't the impetus on those who support torture to actually demonstrate it does work? All anyone has offered is hypotheticals in support of engaging in ethically reprehensible behavior. If you're going to be that violent, you'd better have some evidences it's worthwhile, that it's worth giving up your humanity. Got any?
Posted by: MAJeff | December 29, 2007 12:01 PM
Hmm, did Jamie change names?
They're of a type. Yeah, John McCain is a PC-leftist.