"Torture Doesn't Work"

[The New California Republic]

What exactly do you mean by this? You mean emotional manipulation, yeah, it is. But in your OP, you specifically mentioned physical torture, not any other forms that don't rely on it. There are multiple ways to emotionally and psychologically manipulate a person to get the information you want, and they're much more successful and is more humane to the general population than torture. There's not much reason to endorse torture when there's so many other ways to get information in a more reliable manner.

As mentioned above, it's not exactly "more humane". It may not leave physical marks, but psychological torture has, as stated by other posters, made people go literally insane. No form of torture is "humane" in any sense of the word. Its effectiveness can be debated, but its "humaneness" simply can't be.

Watch the movie The Lives of Others for a look at how devastating methods of psychological torture can be, it is just as destructive and inhumane as physical torture. I cannot recommend this movie highly enough.

[Hydesland]

Nobody actually knows how effective torture is in general because nobody can get reliable empirical data on it. Why? Because it's highly unethical to actually torture people, which is what any reliable experiment would require.

[Hammer Britannia]

Nobody actually knows how effective torture is in general because nobody can get reliable empirical data on it. Why? Because it's highly unethical to actually torture people, which is what any reliable experiment would require.

I mean, there was that marshmallow experiment. That was torture

[Sougra]

As mentioned above, it's not exactly "more humane". It may not leave physical marks, but psychological torture has, as stated by other posters, made people go literally insane. No form of torture is "humane" in any sense of the word. Its effectiveness can be debated, but its "humaneness" simply can't be.

Ah. Sorry, I forgot the word "seen" in my post. To the general population, psychological torture is seen as much more humane. Also, it depends exactly what you mean by "psychological torture", since there's so many different levels. There's Chinese water torture, moving things around in people's houses to the point where they go mad (which has happened), sleep deprivation, forced solitude, blasting uncomfortable music and other loud sounds at loud volumes, destroying personal belongings, and a lot more. But you could also be talking about befriending the prisoners, pride up and ego down, or even the 1945 example another poster made. The latter of these I think we can agree, at the very least, is more acceptable than the other alternatives.

[The South Falls]

Let's take 1945. The Americans needed information from the Japanese, as to where their factories, munitions plants, and shit were. They stationed interpreters there, and provided the Japanese with bunks of two people. What they would do, was provide them with the best things possible, and they'd talk to their comrades. America put mics in the room, and got valuable information. With no torture. Torture would have caused them to hold out more.

Same thing the British did with German officers. Far better to let them drop their guard and pick up chatter

People tell people all manner of things, when they're just chatting with a trusted friend.

[Vistulange]

As mentioned above, it's not exactly "more humane". It may not leave physical marks, but psychological torture has, as stated by other posters, made people go literally insane. No form of torture is "humane" in any sense of the word. Its effectiveness can be debated, but its "humaneness" simply can't be.

Ah. Sorry, I forgot the word "seen" in my post. To the general population, psychological torture is seen as much more humane. Also, it depends exactly what you mean by "psychological torture", since there's so many different levels. There's Chinese water torture, moving things around in people's houses to the point where they go mad (which has happened), sleep deprivation, forced solitude, blasting uncomfortable music and other loud sounds at loud volumes, destroying personal belongings, and a lot more. But you could also be talking about befriending the prisoners, pride up and ego down, or even the 1945 example another poster made. The latter of which I think we can agree, at the very least, is more acceptable than the other alternatives.

I don't think befriending prisoners and manipulating their egos falls under "torture", be it psychological or physical, though. It's coercion and manipulation, but not "torture" in the sense we use it. It's not torture - it's coercion.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Same thing the British did with German officers. Far better to let them drop their guard and pick up chatter

People tell people all manner of things, when they're just chatting with a trusted friend.

Precisely
We’d get better intel by putting a mic under each table in the dining hall then out of torturing people, and we get to walk away without torturing people

[Gospel Power]

1. How long would you be able to hold out? A few minutes? 1 hour? Days? Months? Years? Try to estimate.

Maybe couple of days, I dunno

2. How do you reconcile the phrase "torture doesn't work" with the fact that 99-100 percent of people in the above situation (including yourself probably) would in a pretty short amount of time, tell the government what they need to know to avoid the torture?

It actually can work, most people will tell everything so the torture would stop, even if it the true info that the government want and they would be considered as traitors

3. What do you think in general about the phrase, "Torture Doesn't Work"... is there a way to re-phrase/clarify it so that its a more defensible position?

It actually can work, most people will tell everything so the torture would stop, even if it the true info that the government want and they would be considered as traitors

[The New California Republic]

It actually can work, most people will tell everything so the torture would stop, even if it the true info that the government want and they would be considered as traitors

Huh?

[Salandriagado]

There are many arguments against torture and some of them even make a bit of sense. However, one thing I never understood was the assertion:

"Torture doesn't work."

I don't understand how anyone can say it doesn't work/can't produce results. I have heard many liberal-minded people claim this while I was at university... where they would say something along the lines of "why would any government ever use torture? those tortured would just keep making things up to annoy the authorities/frustrate them. Torture could never work." I have always felt that this was a somewhat delusional position and that people would eat their own words under unfortunate situations.

Its one thing to say that torture is a "human rights abuse" or that its not necessarily always the best go-to method for extracting information... but to say it doesn't work? Seems a bit strong.

Fact of the matter is, threats do produce results. When threats are backed up by the definite use of force and pain inducement... I can't see how someone can hold out. Now of course... if you have NOTHING to tell the government because you in fact know nothing, you're kind of in a doomed position. But if you do have something... I don't see how it won't be extracted (just a question of time frame). A person without any kind of anti-torture training would probably yield in minutes...

Not sure what your thoughts on this subject are.

Now let's discuss a little thought experiment:

You are a criminal and you have some information the government wants from you. You don't want to give it to them. After some back-and-forth, the government decides to resort to torture. They say to you:

"Since you refuse to tell us what we need to know... we will keep hurting you until you do tell us."

They start to torture you and it goes on and on and it doesn't stop until you give them what they want (if you pass out from the pain, you get reset and it continues). Assume that they use a method that is in the style of Ramsay Bolton.

The questions I'd like you to ponder, think about, and then explain are as follows:

1. How long would you be able to hold out? A few minutes? 1 hour? Days? Months? Years? Try to estimate.
2. How do you reconcile the phrase "torture doesn't work" with the fact that 99-100 percent of people in the above situation (including yourself probably) would in a pretty short amount of time, tell the government what they need to know to avoid the torture?
3. What do you think in general about the phrase, "Torture Doesn't Work"... is there a way to re-phrase/clarify it so that its a more defensible position?

1. I'll give myself 10 minutes. And I feel that this is being EXTREMELY generous.

2. There is no need to reconcile it because it can't be reconciled. Its a misleading slogan. Torture does work. Anyone who actually has the information is going to give it up. Its just a problematic method in the sense that if the person was wrongly suspected and in fact knows nothing... they will be tortured ad infinitum. But you can be sure that if anyone knows anything, they will divulge. This is why its historically been used throughout history by the police and military forces.

3.

It doesn't work in getting legal convictions. It doesn't work if there isn't any actual information from the person tortured (they can't gain clairvoyance while being tortured if they are innocent). It doesn't work if you want to stay true to human rights.

However, if someone has got something... they are going to tell you pretty soon if you use a sufficiently painful method. Its just a matter of how far you want to go.

In general I understand other objections to torture but a blanket "torture doesn't work" statement just doesn't hold up.

1. Not very long.
2. That's not the point of the whole "torture doesn't work" thing: the point is that they don't tell the truth: they tell you whatever they think will make the pain stop, true or otherwise. You get confirmation of whatever you thought before the torture, true or not.
3. See 2.

[Salandriagado]

This, pretty much. When a person breaks, they are not guaranteed to be telling the truth as much as saying what they think you want to hear.

they aren't guaranteed to be telling the truth the first time but they will be eventually right?

unless you're saying they can be tortured indefinitely without ever yielding (which again, just seems a bit unrealistic)

If I tell you a thousand things, one of which is right, that's absolutely no more use to you than if I don't tell you anything at all.

[Salandriagado]

Especially if the truth is undesireable or unbelievable to hear.

what is the largest concentration of physical pain that you have endured in your life?

Now imagine that it is being purposefully applied against you until/unless you tell them the information they want. Do you honestly believe that you, under such a situation (or anyone else), could realistically refuse to give the information and keep making things up?

Are all criminals suddenly heroes now?

It's nothing to do with heroism, and everything to do with the fact that "things that you can say to make the pain stop" doesn't match up to "things that are true": it matches up to "things they want/expect to hear".

[Sougra]

I don't think befriending prisoners and manipulating their egos falls under "torture", be it psychological or physical, though. It's coercion and manipulation, but not "torture" in the sense we use it. It's not torture - it's coercion.

No disagreement there, but there are people who would consider coercion and manipulation to be equivalent or almost equivalent to torture. I don't agree with that at all, but I had to acknowledge that torture means different things to different people, so I have to see exactly what we're talking about before going further.

[Salandriagado]

I don't get it either, torture is actually very effective at expediting trials.

Only if you have no interest in determining the truth and are just putting on a show trial as an excuse to execute people you don't like.

[Gospel Power]

It actually can work, most people will tell everything so the torture would stop, even if it the true info that the government want and they would be considered as traitors

Huh?

Well if somebody is under torture, he would probably want it to stop, so he will tell everything to stop the pain

[Isilanka]

It's worth noticing that more often than not torture goes both ways. It's the kind of things that can live durable marks on torturers as well and heavily affect the way an organisation, like the army, relates to violence and pain. Normalizing torture and generally speaking inflicting pain is not something you want, ever.

Not counting the fact that if you're convinced of your lie, or if you actually don't know anything torture will do jack shit, except break a person and put a moral stain on the torturers.

And as others said it's extremely unreliable, but I'm more worried about the moral corruption it can bring. It's almost impossible to consider something like torture as neutral, especially when you're enacting it on terrorists or criminals. It's very, veery easy to go from "I torture this man to get information" to "I torture this man to get revenge for myself or my country", and once you reach that point (a point that, again, is incredibly easy to reach) all bets are off. That's where it can get totally out of control, that's where you leave the realm of justice or intelligence and go into pure retribution and inflicting pain for the sake of it. That's the biggest problem of torture, imo, the way it blurs the border between intelligence gathering and punishment. Sure, other methods have this problem too but torture is by far the worst in that regard.

[The South Falls]

People tell people all manner of things, when they're just chatting with a trusted friend.

Precisely
We’d get better intel by putting a mic under each table in the dining hall then out of torturing people, and we get to walk away without torturing people

Less human rights violations to defend.

[Vassenor]

I don't get it either, torture is actually very effective at expediting trials.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

[The New California Republic]

they aren't guaranteed to be telling the truth the first time but they will be eventually right?

unless you're saying they can be tortured indefinitely without ever yielding (which again, just seems a bit unrealistic)

If I tell you a thousand things, one of which is right, that's absolutely no more use to you than if I don't tell you anything at all.

Exactly. Intentional obfuscation through obscurity and half-truths by the person being tortured is something that the torturer has no counter to.

if somebody is under torture, he would probably want it to stop, so he will tell everything to stop the pain

And that is one of the ultimate arguments against torture: the unreliability of the information obtained.

[Vistulange]

It's worth noticing that more often than not torture goes both ways. It's the kind of things that can live durable marks on torturers as well and heavily affect the way an organisation, like the army, relates to violence and pain. Normalizing torture and generally speaking inflicting pain is not something you want, ever.

Not counting the fact that if you're convinced of your lie, or if you actually don't know anything torture will do jack shit, except break a person and put a moral stain on the torturers.

And as others said it's extremely unreliable, but I'm more worried about the moral corruption it can bring. It's almost impossible to consider something like torture as neutral, especially when you're enacting it on terrorists or criminals. It's very, veery easy to go from "I torture this man to get information" to "I torture this man to get revenge for myself or my country", and once you reach that point (a point that, again, is incredibly easy to reach) all bets are off. That's where it can get totally out of control, that's where you leave the realm of justice or intelligence and go into pure retribution and inflicting pain for the sake of it. That's the biggest problem of torture, imo, the way it blurs the border between intelligence gathering and punishment. Sure, other methods have this problem too but torture is by far the worst in that regard.

The effects of torture on the torturer might just be one of the most understated things regarding the issue.

Really, torture has so many dimensions - practically none of them pleasant - that it's just impossible to defend, unless you have some weird attraction to hurting people for no tangible reason.

[Blaneu]

Well, they used torture to extract confessions from witches in Europe in the 15th-17th centuries, and I haven't heard of a single case of witchcraft since. Obviously it must work...

[The South Falls]

I don't get it either, torture is actually very effective at expediting trials.

No. Fake confessions out the nose are the result.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

However, it is a no-brainer to me that when people are tortured... in the event that they do have the information that is actually being sought... they will pretty quickly give the information. If you have anti-torture training (ex special forces) you might be able to hold out for quite a bit longer but again, we are all only human.

Well, not really. You'll give the information that the torturers want to hear. If we look back at the Knights Templar, they were tortured and imprisoned by agents of King Phillip. And newer initiates in the Order admitted to sodomy, heresy and blasphemy just to make the torture stop. And if the leaders of the Order denied these accusations, they were put to death.

That would not be considered a failure, if your objective is not to acquire information, but to break the mind of your opponent, as is the case with Infected Mushrooms.

[Vistulange]

Well, not really. You'll give the information that the torturers want to hear. If we look back at the Knights Templar, they were tortured and imprisoned by agents of King Phillip. And newer initiates in the Order admitted to sodomy, heresy and blasphemy just to make the torture stop. And if the leaders of the Order denied these accusations, they were put to death.

That would not be considered a failure, if your objective is not to acquire information, but to break the mind of your opponent, as is the case with Infected Mushrooms.

The day I understand IM's "ends" is a day I shall celebrate.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The reason it doesn't work is because the tortured person will say literally anything, even outright lies, to get the torture to stop. [/thread

Precisely.

So they ask "when is the next attack going to be?" while torturing you. You try to lie for a while but eventually you can't hold out so you tell them. They, having no way to verify the truth yet, continue to torture you. You continue to give various answers.

July 17
March 8
September 27
April 1
December 2
January 22
June 5
July 4
August 18
February 29

Which one is right? They can only dedicate resources to one. At this point the CIA is just guessing while torturing some asshole. Oh and here's a twist: the guy genuinely doesn't know. Boom. Turns out it was on july 11th.