Why Torture (Simulated or Otherwise) Is Stupid

[Tysyacha]

A person under torture will say anything, confess to anything, and betray anyone. He or she will renounce former beliefs, quivering and probably bawling on the inside or out. However, is the information that he or she gives to the torturers accurate or true? Maybe so, maybe not. Here is my theory why:

 

If a person tells the truth under torture, he or she has truly been broken. S/he has forsaken the capacity to lie and thus protect his or her friends, beliefs, and country. S/he has given it up in order to be free from the pain. S/he has sold herself to to the torturers to remain alive and, likely, sane.

 

A person who lies under torture has not truly been broken yet, because s/he still clings to the capacity to lie to his/her torturers in order to protect him/herself or others.

 

Of course, it takes time, intelligence, and effort to validate information extracted under torture. Let's say a person has told the truth. S/he may or may not be released; my theory is s/he will more likely be incarcerated still.

 

If a person lies and the torturers discover the lie, they will return and perform more torture until their victim truly breaks and tells the truth.

 

Either way, torture, even simulated torture, is stupid, cruel, and barbaric. It is not the gathering of information, but the destruction of a human being.

[SilentScope001]

Wait, what?

 

You made an entire argument why torture works, and then you say it's stupid? You argued that if a person lies under torture, just torture, and you'll find out anyway?

 

How is it stupid then? Didn't you provide clear and conclusive evidence that torture should be used even more then? Rather, NOT using torture is stupid, because by being constrained to your moral belief that torture is wrong, you are losing all the beniefts of torture.

 

Now...in response to the actual point instead of your argument (being a Devil's Advocate):

 

Your only argument is that it harms humans...which is pretty easy to argue against (if I torture someone, and then use that evidence to save people's lives, obivously I saved more lives than harmed, therefore, it can be seen as moral...or at the very least, I figured out the TRUTH, and truth is far more important than the surivial of a criminal). But in a simulated enviroment, it only harms numbers, are you stating that numbers should not be harmed?

 

And what if a person likes torture? Then how does it harm them?

[Tysyacha]

It is not stupid in the sense that it does not work, because as I unintentionally proved, torture does work (sometimes). It is stupid in the same way that slavery and gulags are stupid: the ends (cheap labor or, in torture's case, gathering information) do not justify the means (destroying human lives).

 

There are much better and more humane ways to practice production and employment (paid wages). There are also much better and more humane ways to gather important information (collaboration with those fighting the terrorists, online research, etc.)

 

That's what I meant, anyway.

[SilentScope001]

Eh. I know many people would be a bit uncomfortable with the idea of bribing a terrorist with money.

 

Still, I was arguing that the bulk of the post inadventurely supported torture. I'm okay with whatever argument people make, I have no opinon on torture (I won't do it), but, I just feel that helping your opponent out isn't exactly a good idea. Debate is war, after all...

[Tysyacha]

I agree, and I didn't mean to do just that. Thanks for the tip, anyway.

 

If I liked torture, I guess I wouldn't think it harmed me because I liked it. I'd be getting pleasure from it. However, my body and mental faculties would be harmed. As for numbers--those "numbers" are numbers of individual humans.

[Rev7]

I am sorry, but how else are you supposed to get information out of someone? I myself don't ever want to be tortured. Say that you are a soldier that is captured by the enemy, what do you think that they would do? They would torture you to no end until they got the information that they want.

[Tysyacha]

You could bribe them, but as SilentScope said, that's not a very popular idea.

[Web Rider]

You could bribe them, but as SilentScope said, that's not a very popular idea.

 

It's not a very SANE idea, that's why it's not popular.

 

Man A hates me.

Man A's friends are planning to kill me(but I don't know when).

I give Man A a thousand bucks to tell me what his friends are planning.

Man A and friends now have a thousand dollars more to work with to kill me, and they know I know that they're planning to kill me.

Man A and friends change plans, I prepare for the plan I know of.

Nothing happens when I'm prepared.

A week later Man A and friends kill me.

 

yeah....bribing that guy was REAL effective.

 

Torture of a singular individual in a void is not very effective, but when you've got multiple people, including infiltrators of the group trying to kill you, sending you information on what's planned, you can compare if what a person tells you is true or not.

 

It's quite literally that simple.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I am sorry, but how else are you supposed to get information out of someone?

You don't honestly believe the only way to interrogate someone is to torture them?

 

I myself don't ever want to be tortured.

So this whole Golden Rule deal of yours wasn't that important to you after all, eh:rolleyes:?

 

Say that you are a soldier that is captured by the enemy, what do you think that they would do? They would torture you to no end until they got the information that they want.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And either way, not all armed forces in the world use torture.

 

We'll be in 2008 in a few days, guys. Think a little before you post. Next you'll advocate running planes into buildings. I think it's time for this again.

 

Your only argument is that it harms humans...which is pretty easy to argue against (if I torture someone, and then use that evidence to save people's lives, obivously I saved more lives than harmed, therefore, it can be seen as moral...

The Ticking Time Bomb fallacy. Reality doesn't work that way.

 

or at the very least, I figured out the TRUTH, and truth is far more important than the surivial of a criminal).

First of all, you never know if the person you're torturing is 'a criminal' or innocent. And secondly, torture is dreadful at finding 'the truth'. Torture just makes the victim tell you what you want to hear, and if you can't tell the difference, I think you need to sit down and ponder it for a few minutes.

[Rev7]

Think a little before you post.

Did I not state my opinion? BTW, I do think before I post.

You don't honestly believe the only way to interrogate someone is to torture them?

Are we not talking about trained terrorists? Please list other ways to interrogate terrorists other than torture.

So this whole Golden Rule deal of yours wasn't that important to you after all, eh

So what golden rule are you talking about, "do to others as you would want done to yourself", I am not torturing anyone. I never will either.

not all armed forces in the world use torture

I am just curious, how would you know...

 

I am sorry if I seem a little 'harsh' , but this is a tough topic to talk about... apologies in advance...

[SilentScope001]

BIG DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate torture. I merely advocate for having arguments be improved.

 

Tysyacha: The concept about simulated beings being given the same rights as non-simulated beings (in this case, the right to avoid torture) have been discussed here, with the mass majority rolling their eyes at me talking about the oppression of writers. One of the posters, ED, said that you can do whatever you want at all...so, you might be interested in looking at that thread.

 

The Ticking Time Bomb fallacy. Reality doesn't work that way.

 

Doesn't matter if it is a fallacy, I said people can argue it that way. The fact is, torture can gain knowledge, and then that knowledge be used to win a war. To think it can save lives...debatable. But it can gain knowledge. Torture has been with us for a long time, mind you.

 

First of all, you never know if the person you're torturing is 'a criminal' or innocent.

 

Considering the fact they are arrested, it is sorta assumed that the prevailing thought is that they are criminals. "Guilty before proven innocent" would be the motto of the interrogter.

 

And secondly, torture is dreadful at finding 'the truth'. Torture just makes the victim tell you what you want to hear, and if you can't tell the difference, I think you need to sit down and ponder it for a few minutes.

 

And I point back to Tysyacha's first post. If the person lies, and you find out he lies, then you'll go and torture him some more to finally break the guy.

 

yeah....bribing that guy was REAL effective.

 

To argue on the other side, the US can (and does) in fact bribe. I remember stumbling upon a website by the US government trying to raise money to pay for informants. Sad to say, I don't have the URL, but bribing DOES work. There has been rumors that the United States was able to keep Sunni attacks in Iraq down by bribing local preists.

 

In fact, I would recommend it (because if we are willing to buy uber-tanks to destroy Enemies of the State, we should be able to bribe other people), altough, to be perfectly honest, if we expect criminals to betray their cause just for a bit of cash, we would be severly underestimating human nature, and being pretty insulting in the process to the very cause...After all, do you really think that American troops are going to go out and defect to Enemy Fores if they are given $500,000?

 

And don't forget "plea baragins". They aren't bribing either, but they gather useful information.

[Achilles]

Please list other ways to interrogate terrorists other than torture.

NPR report from the Army's intelligence training post, at Fort Huachuca, AZ

NPR interview with various people regarding torture in the media (Listen for comments from intelligence expert Col. Stuart Herrington).

 

My 2 cents: torture is absolutely morally justified in "ticking time bomb" scenarios. Fortunately, the constraints for establishing such a scenario are so stringent that it's highly unlikely we'll ever have to worry about 2nd guessing ourselves.

[Rev7]

Is not torture a form of interrogation? Would you not think that these terrorists, in America's case, are interrogated first, and if the suspect doesn't 'cooperate', things escalate into torture.

[Achilles]

Is not torture a form of interrogation?

No. There is no dependent relationship between the two. You can have torture without interrogation and interrogation without torture. To state they are somehow mutually dependent is just incorrect.

 

You asked for examples of interrogation that did not involve torture. I provided you examples of military intelligence experts giving interviews where they state quite clearly that torture not only doesn't work but provides bad intelligence. In all fairness, I imagine that you could probably find similarly qualified individuals that would argue the exact opposite. So I guess at some point we'll have to use common sense and critical thinking to make up our own minds about which arguments have the most merit.

 

Would you not think that these terrorists, in America's case, are interrogated first, and if the suspect doesn't 'cooperate', things escalate into torture.

Who gets to decide what "doesn't cooperate" means?

If I ask you to tell me what you know and you tell me that you know nothing, couldn't I argue that you aren't cooperating?

[Tommycat]

Actually during SERE training you learn that torture is a bad way to get information. It gets you someone willing to say or do whatever you want to stop the torture, but what they say is what they think you want to hear whether or not it's true. Torture is a very poor interrogation method.

[Lance Monance]

All I know is that if I was faced with torture, I would probably say the truth first, and if they proceed to torture me, THEN I would say whatever I think would make them stop. People who received some kind of intelligence training may react in a different way and try to deceive their interrogators though.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So what golden rule are you talking about, "do to others as you would want done to yourself", I am not torturing anyone. I never will either.

Moot point. You advocate it against others even though you do not want it done unto you.

 

Considering the fact they are arrested, it is sorta assumed that the prevailing thought is that they are criminals.

In a totalitarian country, maybe.

 

"Guilty before proven innocent" would be the motto of the interrogter.

But 'innocent until proven guilty' is the motto of democratic nations. My point, either way, was that if you advocate torture against suspects, heck, even convicted criminals, you will be torturing people who are as innocent as you, your parents, and your best friends. There are already ample examples of this happening.

[Rev7]

Who gets to decide what "doesn't cooperate" means?

"doesn't cooperate" can mean many thing yes, from telling the truth to not telling the truth, to not talking, to spitting, the word can mean many things. Obviously the person who interrogates someone gets to make that decision. Proper interrogation techniques should, and most of the time I think that they are being used.

 

****I am NOT saying that I support torture, or that I encourage it. I am just trying to look at the situation from a different point of view. I don't want to hear about people being tortured. I don't think that torture should be the first thing thought of when interrogating people. I don't want to torture someone, and I don't want to be tortured. I also wish that proper interrogation techniques are used all the time, without torture. I do not believe in torture at all. Hopefully this will change your view on my opinion on this matter. Thanks!****

 

By the way Achilles, thank you for the links!

[Tysyacha]

HK-Tysy7:

 

"Query: If THEY torture, and WE also torture, then how can WE lay claim to the 'moral high ground' "?

 

"Proposition: WE may do it in the name of our countries, our god(s), our fellow men, or even the cause of 'good' as opposed to 'evil'. However, THEY do the same. The one who decides what is 'good' and 'evil', who is 'innocent' and who is 'guilty', is more likely the torturer. The victim may admit to his or her own guilt yet not believe it at heart."

[MJ-W4]

Actually during SERE training you learn that torture is a bad way to get information. It gets you someone willing to say or do whatever you want to stop the torture, but what they say is what they think you want to hear whether or not it's true. Torture is a very poor interrogation method.

This seems to be the point in this matter: Human history shows that people will say absolutely anything under torture, therefore, torture is nothing more than base cruelty for cruelty's sake.

[Tysyacha]

If human history shows this, then why is our own American government promoting and practicing it? America is a democracy, which means that the majority rules. Does this also mean that the majority of people in America favor the use of torture?

 

I could be wrong, but I don't THINK so.

[MJ-W4]

^ That's what we Europeans have been wondering about to no small extent. Why, as it were, is the US government promoting torture?

 

For lack of any sensible explanation, and sarcastically speaking, I might have to assume a blatant lack of history books on your side of the big pond. At least, history books available to the US powers that be.

[Tommycat]

If human history shows this, then why is our own American government promoting and practicing it? America is a democracy, which means that the majority rules. Does this also mean that the majority of people in America favor the use of torture?

 

I could be wrong, but I don't THINK so.

Actually, the governmtnt is not promoting the use of torture, some portions of it are, and I think I stand on the side of McCain on the issue of using torture. Those of us that have been through SERE training, know its faults. McCain was actually tortured in a POW camp, and has a pretty good perspective on it. Though I think the main issue is what they consider torture, and what they consider interrogation techniques. It seems the contention is really the point where interrogation becomes torture.

 

I think the majority of Americans right now have a vengance mentality more so than actually getting to the truth of the matter. They really don't care about people they see as subhuman garbage. Is it right? No, but the mentality is rather pervasive right now. The majority either don't care about those at Gitmo, or want revenge taken out on those that may have had something to do with it.

[Achilles]

If human history shows this, then why is our own American government promoting and practicing it?

I don't have an answer. If I had to guess, then I would say that our gov't hopes to demoralize or somehow subjugate Muslim people (i.e. "Look what we can do to you"). What I think many of us fail to grasp is that this tends to foster the opposite reaction (i.e. people that feel that they are oppressed by a nameless, faceless force tend to resort to acts of terrorism for revenge).

 

America is a democracy, which means that the majority rules.

America is a democracy which means that the voting majority rules. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any need to make the distinction, but we don't live in a perfect world. In fairness to your point though, every man and woman of legal age could vote and we could find ourselves in the exact same position. This would tell us one of two things: 1) at least 51% of Americans agree with these kinds of policies or 2) our elected officials act with impunity to achieve their own goals despite what their constituencies want.

 

Does this also mean that the majority of people in America favor the use of torture?

It's possible. I think to a certain degree many of us have been convinced that this is just the world we live in now. Watch enough episodes of "24" and I imagine it becomes easy to automatically equate "torture" with "justified" in one's mind. Tell people that don't know better and/or don't care that the people being tortured are terrorists (even though they aren't permitted a trial, access to the evidence against them, or the ability to face their accusers), and I imagine that most people will say "Oh, alright then". No matter that our government can just decide that anyone (including you or me) is a threat.

[PoiuyWired]

I don't have an answer. If I had to guess, then I would say that our gov't hopes to demoralize or somehow subjugate Muslim people (i.e. "Look what we can do to you"). What I think many of us fail to grasp is that this tends to foster the opposite reaction (i.e. people that feel that they are oppressed by a nameless, faceless force tend to resort to acts of terrorism for revenge).

 

 

QFE.

 

Especially true when your "Target Audience" tend to treat being tortured and/or killed as martyrdom with a one way ticket to happy afterlife...

 

Its almost like a big neon sign saying "72 virgins here I come" attracting even more oppositions.