Torture

[Hoi Polloi]

You have documentation on that or are you just wagging at it?

Everything I've read from academic studies to CIA dox suggest the ticking time bomb hypothetical is hog wash.

It used to be routine to get confessions using torture, of course. That is the rationale behind the 5th amendment. Information is a different matter.

Post 9/11 there's a wish to be as tough and ruthless as al Qaeda. "9/11 changed everything." Well, it certainly changed somethings, but certain facts remain the same. E still equals MC squared, reraising a solid EP raiser with AJo is still -EV and torture is still a lousy and immoral way to get information. But hey, al Qaeda's immoral so we should be too and bin Laden raises with Axo from any position so we should too.

[Hoi Polloi]

But if we grant, which I don't, that torture can effectively gain information, I think we have to acknowledge that those engaging in such ends-justify-the-means torture will need to have training in effective torture techniques and procedures prior to making their seats of the pants decision to break the law. Otherwise, it certainly won't work. So, are you advocating clandestine torture schools for those inclined to master torture?

In any case, this line does not solve the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nope, they should wing it.

As for your belief that torture doesn't yield new information: there have been many terrible regimes that have crushed their opposition by torturing suspected coup conspirators until they divulged the names of their co-conspirators. I believe Saddam's Iraq was a perfect example.

Torture has been used for millenia to break up such groups. This is--to my knowledge-- the principle reason for Al Qaeda's withdrawal from Egypt in the '90s. The government tortured members and family of members wholesale until they gave up the names of their associates.

Why do you think such organizations take great pains to organize themselves into cells, allowing any single member to know what they must and nothing more?

You are saying it is impossible for a person to divulge the information their torturer seeks. This defies common sense, not to mention thousands of years of history.

I ask you: what is it about this person in Sklansky's hypothetical that makes them immune to torture? What is it about the nature of torture, as opposed to other, more civilized means of coercion, that renders it inherently devoid of the possibility of success?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
A serial child kidnapper takes the kids and buries them alive in coffins. They suffocate in 48 hours. He is captured a few hours after taking his last victim. He CONFESSES but will not tell where the child is buried. Is it morally wrong to torture him if that is the most effective way to find the kid? If you say, yes explain why. If you say no then explain why torture is illegal even in cases like this (as it surely is, in this country anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll pass on the question.

That said, keep in mind that the most effective torture doesn't neccersarily require pyhsicaly brutality. This Atlantic Monthly article is a worthwhile read.

~ Rick

[Hoi Polloi]

Your views are not backed up by facts.

The Washington Post<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55136-2005Mar21.html">reports</a> this morning:

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. law enforcement agents working at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concluded that controversial interrogation practices used there by the Defense Department produced intelligence information that was "suspect at best," an FBI agent told a superior in a memo in May last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for Egypt: mass repression including torture of suspects does not generate information leading to arrests, convictions and societal change. It leads to more repression and it breeds terrorists. That's the Ayman Zawhiri story. It was only after being tortured in an Egyptian prison that he decided a political solution was not feasible and the path of violence was necessary. He planned and coordinated 9/11. Do you view this as a case of torture succeeding?

I stick to my argument. Torture is not effective. Our desire to torture al Qaeda is similar to our hanging on the death penalty. We want revenge. It has been shown over and over that the death penalty is not a deterent to crime; death penalty states in fact have higher per capita incidents of capital crimes than non-death penalty states nor does it provide "closure" for the victims families. It simply placates a barbaric desire for revenge. Torture falls into this pattern as well in my view. Notions such as ethics and morals developed in human civilization to restrain these bestial, instinctive responses. Torture is and will remain immoral as well as ineffective.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Egypt: mass repression including torture of suspects does not generate information leading to arrests, convictions and societal change. It leads to more repression and it breeds terrorists. That's the Ayman Zawhiri story. It was only after being tortured in an Egyptian prison that he decided a political solution was not feasible and the path of violence was necessary. He planned and coordinated 9/11. Do you view this as a case of torture succeeding?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is hilarious. 9/11 didn't occur in Egypt, so from their perspective, it seems to have worked out just fine. This was not what we were arguing about. We were arguing about whether you could elicit important information from someone by torturing them. You can.

If you read my opinion you will see the idea of torture as revenge does not arise. I am so opposed to torture that even in Sklansky's case I would want it to remain illegal. Reread what I originally wrote. I am right and you are wrong. Unless you can somehow prove that these kind of hypotheticals are logically impossible, in which case I will tip my hat and change my opinion.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read my opinion you will see the idea of torture as revenge does not arise. I am so opposed to torture that even in Sklansky's case I would want it to remain illegal. Reread what I originally wrote. I am right and you are wrong. Unless you can somehow prove that these kind of hypotheticals are logically impossible, in which case I will tip my hat and change my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you have not advocated a policy of legalized torture. What we are arguing about is whether torture can deliver the goods. It seems to me you assume it can and do not have any interest in questioning the assumption.

Here are two posts of your posts:

In response to my first post:
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that torture can never yield new information may be comforting to you, but has no basis in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Later you write:
[ QUOTE ]
However, illegality does not necessarily imply immorality. It is not logically impossible for torture to be the best option. Since we would like to enjoy the best of both worlds--where torture is a power the state does not possess, yet may be exercised in those instances where it truly would be efficacious--the decision to torture must rest in the hands of the enforcers of law whom are most intimately involved in each case. If torture ever truly is the best option, these people will understand they must break the law and risk losing everything. A judge's consent is no where near enough. The would-be torturer must be so convinced of the correctness of the method that they would trade their liberty to employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your remarks assume, as does David's original hypothetical, that torture is effective. I'm arguing it is not. I posted the link to the WP article as evidence for my point of view that torture does not gain new information--or valuable, trustworthy information which I would argue is the same thing. You seem to have found it completely unconvincing. And continue to hold that it is "common sense" that torture gets the information the torturer is seeking with a very high degree of reliability. My reading has suggested otherwise. We'll just have to disagree on that because "common sense" cannot be argued with--since it need not present any evidence beyond its own conviction.

As for your citation of brutal regimes through history I would argue that in these cases torture is used to intimidate and cow the regime's captive population (cf Saddam's Iraq). It does not seek to gain information so much as it seeks to send a message: we will do anything to remain in power including torturing, maiming, murdering, etc. After all if torture were so effective a regime like Saddam's would not need to employ a secret police organization relying on snitches, moles, etc. They could just start torturing people and follow the information they gain whereever it takes them.

In the end I think it is an interesting "game" theory problem as to how to adjudicate the success of any given torture exercise. I think the theory would show that torture is not highly reliable. But that is for another day.

I'll just have to be satisfied being wrong. It won't be the first time. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for the debate. It's been interesting.

[Bell_2004]

You know, there are a lot of decent people saying a lot of self-evident decent things. Cause they, you know, care about children. To which I say, whatever. And if they have to violate core morale principles and create systems open to extreme abuse to save that baby, they will. Needless to say, if it is expedient to kill ten thousand children to achieve a "worthwhile goal", they will do that to. And that is what I feel needs to be pointed out. None, NOT ONE, of the pro-torture crowd is the least bit concerned about Hiroshima or Nagisaki. I know the stories, sure the Japanese were completely isolated and trapped on their really tiny island with almost no navy(going towards zero), sure they were starving, but, but, you see there was a certain date they had to surrender by, a special date! Because that very day American soldiers would have been FORCED to attack mainland Japan! Forced to! Tens of thousands would have died! Now, I know some "nut jobs" think that a totally isolated, starving, helpless enemy can't "force" you to attack him on the "magic date", but that is where you are so wrong. The Enemy possesses magic powers! In that sense Japan is no different from Germany or Iraq, in all cases, no matter how defeated the enemy, we were forced to engage in high altitude bombings with associated dead civilians(including children). They had no choice!

There was an advantage to be gained!

And that is why the pro-torture crowd should never, ever, ever be given the ability to torture.