Torture: I Hate It When I'm Right

Tristero, who is also disgusted by Bush's de facto admission that he authorized torture, writes (emphasis original):

I think bloggers should focus on the essential issue and constantly remind our readers what it is:

There is no longer the shadow of a doubt that the torture of prisoners was planned at the highest levels of the US government with the explicit knowledge and approval of the president. How do we know this? Bush himself admitted it.

What we also need to do is to remind people exactly what it means to torture, and that torture is profoundly immoral. Furthermore we should make it clear that among the numerous reasons that torture is profoundly immoral is that torture makes societies who torture less safe. Specifically, there is no correlation between torture and accurate, actionable intelligence, despite Bush's lies and the propaganda fed to the American public in shows like "24."

A while ago, I wrote about how torture never happens in isolation. For there to be any logic, albeit an immoral and twisted one, torture must be routine:

Figuring out what is reliable intelligence is difficult even with voluntary walk-ins; it will be much harder with someone who is actively trying to hinder you. So how do you figure out whether or not the torture victim is telling the truth? Corroborating evidence.

In other words, evidence acquired through torture will never reveal unique, unknown information. It is only useful when there is other confirmatory evidence. So torture serves no purpose in the Jack Bauer situation, since it, at best, further supports what you already knew or suspected. For torture to have any possibility of being an effective interrogation technique, you have to torture lots of people in the hope that multiple torture victims will confirm each others' information. This means that torture has to become a routine component of interrogation.

I hate being right.

Related post: Helmut goes to Washington.


More like this

Since torture seems to be under discussion by the A-list bloggers, I want to follow up on a point Helmut made in his Congressional testimony about torture. Simply, it is this: if torture is truly used as an interrogation technique, and not to fulfill a psychological need or as terrorism, it can…
In yesterday's NY Times, Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 who worked on counterterrorism, wrote a devastating indictment of the failure of torture to collect useful intelligence. To me, the most critical part of the op-ed is about how torture fails to reveal novel…
...and both Helmut and the Mad Biologist told you that would be the case over a year ago. From The Washington Post (italics mine): When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in…
I'm becoming more enthusiatic about Eric Holder as Attorney General. It's nice to see some clarity about waterboarding--that is, partial drowning interrogation. From Steve Benen: The exchange was helpful in learning about both the senator and the nominee. [Republican Senator] Cornyn wanted Holder…

Wingnuts always present the "ticking bomb" scenario to justify torture.
Of course, in real life, the torturees are SUSPECTS.
You torture sympatisants, hanger-ons and relatives, maybe they'll lead to bigger fish.

What do you do when your torturee turns out to be innocent of what you didn't formally accuse him (her) of ? Apologize ? Detain him (her) indefinitely ?

"...[W]hen your torturee turns out to be innocent," they simply disappear. Duh.

By Matt Platte (not verified) on 14 Apr 2008 #permalink

Nobody "turns out to be innocent," if the interrogators are even halfway competent. And while some people take comfort in being assured that many of the US' interrogators skilled in "enhanced techniques" are nothing less than piggish, cruel, brutes, the truth is most of them are rather bright, cool, and creative.