

Does torture work well as an interrogation technique? - striking
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4498/does-torture-work-well-as-an-interrogation-technique/4500#4500

======
pdkl95
Obviously there is a well-known historical record that shows how how torture
is ineffective and misleading, but that really doesn't matter. Even if it was
effective, it is still a terrible idea that should never be entertained by a
supposedly modern/advanced society.

Ethical reasons about basic human rights and cruelty should really be enough
of a reason to never allow torture. It is also a completely stupid tactic, for
reasons you would expect the military and and intelligence communities to
understand: using torture escalates the conflict. You don't do it for the same
reason chemical weapons are a bad idea: it invites the enemy to do the same in
return.

~~~
deciplex
> _Even if it was effective, it is still a terrible idea that should never be
> entertained by a supposedly modern /advanced society._

Are you sure about that? Torture is ineffective: the intelligence you get is
very likely to either confirm (incorrect) biases you already have, and failing
that to lead you to new and incorrect wrong conclusions. Even if the fate of
the world depended on it, resorting to torture is - at best - a gamble with
very long odds. Aside from the ethical concerns, the main issue with torture
from an intelligence perspective is that it usually makes the problem worse.
It makes you stupider, not smarter (assuming you are actually doing torture to
obtain real, actionable intelligence).

But what if it were effective? What if doing torture on a single individual
was provably likely to make you 10% more effective at your job, and your job
at the moment happens to involve trying to save a million lives? Don't get me
wrong, I fucking _hated_ 24 for the way it glamorized torture - it would be
disgusting for doing that even if torture were effective. But _if torture were
effective_ it seems like you could build some utilitarian calculus around when
to use it, and that sometimes it would be a good idea to do it.

~~~
pdkl95
Depending on what your goals are, VX gas can be very effective. There are
quite a few situations where thermonuclear devices are _very_ effective.

So why don't we use them? Why are certain types of bio/chem/nuclear weaponry
considered to be generally banned _internationally_? Why are they seen in such
a poor light the use of e.g. sarin gas by a country can create a multi-
national scandal with sanctions, UN observers, and even military threats?

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that that effectiveness for
intelligence is not the question that should be asked, as it ignores the rest
of the effects that happen when you torture (or use nuclear weapons, or VX,
...). Reputation matters. PR matters. In a conflict, these concepts are
especially important because _escalation_ matters. Bringing out a gun in a
knife fight _might_ win you the current battle, but it practically guarantees
that the _next_ battle will be fought with guns from the start.

You should probably look up the history of what we did to the Japanese when
they tortured Allied soldiers in WW2. A major goal about _not torturing
people_ is that we don't want our _current_ soldiers to have to face similar
treatment. Torturing (or otherwise escalating conflicts) _increases risk_ to
our soldiers.

~~~
deciplex
I didn't miss your point at all, only tried to add to it. The effectiveness of
torture absolutely _should_ be questioned, and happily the real answer aligns
with the answer we would like, and contributes to the argument _against_
torture, rather than the one for it. And even if it were effective, most of
the time we would still rule it out for the reasons you already mentioned,
however its effectiveness could no longer be used as an argument against it.

Not asking that question, and mentioning the answer, is just going to make
your argument weaker either way: if it is effective you'll be ignoring a
strength in your opponent's position, and if it isn't effective you'll be
ignoring one of your own strengths.

------
api
Legitimate question:

Given the objective evidence that this is not reliable as an interrogation
technique, _why was it done?_

I find it difficult to believe that US military brass are ignorant or stupid.
These people spend their lives studying strategy, intelligence, etc. When
educated and intelligent experts suggest or do incredibly irrational things, I
often wonder if there isn't some _other_ reason that is not being publicly
stated or discussed. In other words, do these irrational things become
rational when viewed from a different perspective?

A somewhat cynical answer I've encountered is: it was done to deliberately
foment anti-American sentiment based on a "fight them over there, not here"
and/or "shake the tree" theory of operation.

A significantly more cynical answer I've encountered: the US defense
establishment is an enormous make-work program and requires a constant supply
of enemies to justify its budgets. By this reasoning ISIS would be an example
of a successful result of this program -- a long-term enemy against which we
can fight a low-grade war for a decade or more.

Of course I suppose I may be wrong. My assumption here is that educated and
intelligent experts will behave rationally. This assumption actually underlies
quite a bit of so-called "conspiracy theory" \-- the reasoning process goes
"elite leaders of business and government act like idiots, but they're not
idiots, so therefore there must be a big nefarious conspiracy or hidden
agenda!"

But maybe they are idiots -- or at least are behaving very irrationally due to
emotional or ideological drives or bad information. As the saying goes:
conspiracy theory is actually optimistic. It assumes that human beings are
rational, resourceful, organized, and in control of the situation. The other
possibility is significantly more pessimistic: the world is run by delusional
ideologues and "peter principle" apparatchiks who _really are that foolish_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle)

~~~
bediger4000
I think it's this one:

 _the US defense establishment is an enormous make-work program and requires a
constant supply of enemies to justify its budgets._

The Communists where mostly gone by 2001 - the few left were either
laughingstocks or Chinese. The Peace Dividend was a disaster for US "deep
state" people and corporations. They latched on to the first easy boogeyman
they could, Osama bin Laden. Notice that since Al Queada has effectively been
droned out of existence, the emphasis has shifted to ISIS/ISIL, with Iran in
the batter's box.

Terrorism has been immensely good for the US Deep State and defense
contractors. I don't expect it to go away easily or quickly, cause, heck, it's
more profitable than Communism.

~~~
api
Simpler version: war is how you sell stimulus to conservatives.

------
orionblastar
Hard to say because the Bush Administration did not give details on
information they got from torture that prevented terrorist attacks and didn't
list any inaccurate information they got that was false because the person
being tortured gave any info to make the torture stop.

We know that terrorist attacks on US soil stopped, but it might not be due to
torture getting information, it may be due to the fact that terrorists use
social networks and our military was able to obtain the info in the Middle-
East when raiding terrorist buildings and recovering computer equipment. They
could have just data mined social network accounts used by terrorists and
gotten the data off hard drives with lists of bank accounts and people who are
being paid to do terrorist attacks.

I think when the Obama administration killed Osama bin Laden they raided his
hard drives from his servers and computers and got a lot of information off of
them. More than one could get from torture. So there are other methods of
getting information that are more effective than torture.

We also have the NSA Metadata program and Prism system of collecting
information. While many consider it a violation of rights and privacy, it
might have collected a lot of information used to prevent terrorist attacks.

Still these methods are unpopular with the people, torture, domestic spying,
etc.

~~~
yellowapple
> We know that terrorist attacks on US soil stopped

Except they didn't. At most, they shifted from organized plots (like that of
9/11) to less-organized events (like that of the Boston Marathon bombing).

~~~
orionblastar
You have a point but the Al Qaeda and terrorist networks didn't do the Boston
Bombing it was two brothers acting alone. The Islamic shooters were lone
wolves. No ties to terrorist networks.

They weren't organized by terrorist networks but they were terrorism.

