So. Torture.

[FateWitch13]

Absolutely. Nothing is off limits.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My concern: with that attitude, the day will come when you can't even scowl at a terrorist without it being called torture, and we will completely lose the ability to defend our very lives. That's something I'm not willing to let happen.

That's a rather extreme example of the slippery slope fallacy there.

There is a big difference between refusing to violate human rights for its own sake, and not defending oneself.

Secondly, what are you going to do with that? You have not been entrusted to decide if torture should be used. You can vote for people who are pro-torture, or persuade others to do so, maybe run for office yourself, but that's about it.

 

[verdant monkai]

Yep torture him.

If we are 100% confirmed he is a terrorist who wants to end the life of hundreds of thousands, because his point of view demands bloodshed. Do whatever is necessary to obtain the information as quick as possible, disregard his personal health and well being. You sacrifice things like human rights when you are trying to murder innocents on a grand scale. After the situation has been dealt with give him a painless and quick execution, dissolve his body in acid so there is no evidence of him being ever found, this way he won't become a martyr to the cause. Do not inform anyone of his fate.

This would apply to anyone who was trying to murder a whole load of innocent civilians, doesn't matter what religion or race you are. You give up your human rights when you try and rob innocents of their own lives.

 

[gorfias]

That's a rather extreme example of the slippery slope fallacy there.

One of the things they would do to interrogate someone would be to physically slam them into a fake wall that would make a big scary boom when they did it. To me, that is not torture and worth doing to save lives. Others define it simply as anything that makes a prisoner even mentally uncomfortable to gain information. That could include a scowl.

You have not been entrusted to decide if torture should be used. You can vote for people who are pro-torture, or persuade others to do so, maybe run for office yourself, but that's about it.

And I can speak, write, persuade, heck, post on this thread. Freedom of speech baby. It's groovy!

 

[Fox12]

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder.

And I bet you personally would oppose the death penalty even if it could be conclusively proven to be a deterrent. Why I think that, see below...

But, you know what? Even if it worked, I'd still be against it.

This is very common. There appears to be a large number of people, often very elite and in positions of power, that are against a thing, and then say, "and it doesn't even work anyway!" so as to find a way to lessen political repercussions when a ruling elite thumb their noses at substantial percentages of the population.

My concern: with that attitude, the day will come when you can't even scowl at a terrorist without it being called torture, and we will completely lose the ability to defend our very lives. That's something I'm not willing to let happen.

Complete and utter demagogue nonsense. Being against torture doesn't equal letting terrorists frolic around free.

I support a system of laws, rules, and regulations that protect human rights. When you make it okay to torture one person, you open up torture as a viable option for other situations by creating precedent. Is it okay to torture american citizens? By defending the worst of us, we're defending everyone. We're setting up a zero tolerance policy. I'm not just being moralistic, there are legitimate concerns to consider, but people are too blinded by hate to see clearly. I'm not concerned about terrorists, I don't give a shit about them. I'm defending their human rights because its necessary to defend human rights as a concept. You mentioned the death sentence. I support the death sentence, as long as the individual is given a trial by jury, and has access to the appeal process. What the government can't be allowed to do is run hog wild, and torture and execute whomever they want, like lindsey graham wants. We can't sacrifice our liberties and humanity to fight terrorists. Honestly, the government scares me far more than all the terrorists combined. The terrorists can't destroy America, they don't have the resources. But the American government can destroy our republic from the inside out if we're not careful.

But, more then that, torture has never proven a reliable method for intelligence gathering. Historically it has proven flimsy for gaining true intel, and is better served as an intimidation technique. The senate report had already found torture to have been an inefficient method for gathering intel.

 

[gorfias]

Your statement might have more... gravitas, if I were not so readily willing to admit it were true.

I think the statement would be more correct to write that my statement would have less gravitas were you not so readily willing to admit it is true.

Being against torture doesn't equal letting terrorists frolic around free.

I appologize if I implied otherwise.

I support a system of laws, rules, and regulations that protect human rights. When you make it okay to torture one person, you open up torture as a viable option for other situations by creating precedent...

I just got spanked in this very thread for too slippery slope an argument. Waterboarding 3 known terrorists with medical people in standby to ensure no permanent damage is a far cry from dipping innocent American civilians into plastic shredders toes first.

But the concept of giggling at a terrorist's privates has already been equated to a war crime. The danger of having terrorists lawyer up and not give us intelligence in an asymmetrical warfare world is a reality. It shouldn't be and we have an obligation to fight to see to it that our intelligence community knows we stand by them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But the concept of giggling at a terrorist's privates has already been equated to a war crime.

If you mean posing with naked prisoners who are being mistreated, that is not the same thing.

The danger of having terrorists lawyer up and not give us intelligence in an asymmetrical warfare world is a reality.

The danger of anyone that state wants to do things to getting lawyered up is a reality. Lots of things would be easier if we didn't bother with rights. It's just really, really not a good idea to do so.

It shouldn't be and we have an obligation to fight to see to it that our intelligence community knows we stand by them.

No, we have an obligation to fight to see to it that the intelligence community knows they should stand by us.

 

[Namehere]

McCain says that he gave his torturers the names of the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers (though he thought they were the Steelers at the time). How useful do you think that was to his captors? How useful would that be to us?

I keep reading he loves to say that, but all over the internet are stories of him giving his captors good, solid military information in exchange for preferential treatment. Example: http://www.bartcop.com/mccain-contrived-hero.htm

Not that I blame him. The guy was mangled. But I want to make a point: Torture works. Sure, you get a lot of disinformation. But, as you can see recreated in films for instance, like, "The Lives of Others", the torturers need to sift through that information to get what they want.

Torture always works, unless there's nothing to find out. Of course you discount operational security windows. In essence you hold out as long as you can. Beatings? They happen. Lack of food and sleep? Again they happen. Rape? It happens. Tearing off your finger nails... you might consider giving something up, especially if you've past your last check in and your superiors likely realize there's a problem and are as you talk changing the operation you have information on.

There was a time you could be forgiven for assuming that surrender to the US and its allies was preferable then surrender to any other force out there, especially as regards rule of law and the treatment of prisoners. That time has passed. And it will cost the US both in war and peace.

 

[Olas]

Imagine if the CIA's caught a leprechaun that has been irrefutably proven to be a leprechaun. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical scenario, they know for sure that taking his lucky charms will produce the breakfast needed to stop 9/11-scale munchies scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that breakfast.

Do you support taking his lucky charms?

***

There, I fixed the OP to a slightly more plausible scenario.
Please keep the discussion civil.

Oh yes, that's definitely more plausible.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how plausible a hypothetical scenario is, because it's hypothetical. If you don't like debating hypothetical scenarios unless they're within a certain degree of probability, then don't post in threads that are about them.

Also, what the hell does "9/11-scale munchies" mean?

If you don't like reading posts that make fun of a ridiculous premise, then don't go on the internet.

At least you could explain WHY it's ridiculous so that your hyperbole actually feels warranted. I could make the same sarcastic exaggeration towards ANY premise, it doesn't suddenly prove that the scenario is ridiculous.

You say that man landed on the moon during the 1960s in a giant rocket?

Actually a bunch of unicorns flew the men to the moon to visit the magical sugarplum fairies. There, I made your story more plausible.

9/11-scale munchies is like, if millions of stomachs suddenly cried out in hunger!

So one single leprechaun's lucky charms are enough to feed millions of stomachs? How the hell does that work?

 

[Do4600]

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

Congratulations then you created a scenario where torture might be useful. they fact you have to bend so far over backwards to do it doesn't tell you more than anyone answers ever could?

The point of the question wasn't to justify real-lie torture. I'm against real-life torture. I just wanted to see how people would react if the effectiveness wasn't an issue.

What possible information can you get from this question? You've stripped away every last bit of relevance from the question. It's like if I give you the following hypothetical: "Imagine that the only way you can eat is by eating vomit, but that vomit tastes like bubblegum and nobody could ever know that you can only eat vomit, but you're of Religion X and people from Religion X can't eat vomit as part of their oaths and you happen to be a devote member of Religion X, and also it's the future and most people don't eat anymore anyway but you have a stomach condition and that means you can only eat vomit. Would you eat?"

You've added so many qualifiers that the question doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Ramzal]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

(Oh, and I know perfectly well this kind of convenience isn't how it works in real life. That's why I didn't post this in the politics forum -- it's not applicable to real-world politics. Just interested in what you'll reply.)

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

2. There is no other way to acquire the information.

3. You know for sure that the attack will take place.

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

No because torture doesn't work like it does in the movies. People would say anything to get pain to stop. Most people who support torture either never been physically tortured themselves or wouldn't have it in them to do it themselves.

 

[chikusho]

At least you could explain WHY it's ridiculous so that your hyperbole actually feels warranted. I could make the same sarcastic exaggeration towards ANY premise, it doesn't suddenly prove that the scenario is ridiculous.

You say that man landed on the moon during the 1960s in a giant rocket?

Actually a bunch of unicorns flew the men to the moon to visit the magical sugarplum fairies. There, I made your story more plausible.

It's ridiculous because it's complete fiction clouding an issue that has just become extremely important. The scenario pictured is only something Jack Bauer or The Batman would ever face. So, something closer to that, a narrative that is completely and obviously fake, is what I'm getting at.

You, on the other hand, used your scenario to discredit a known fact, which doesn't really compare.

So one single leprechaun's lucky charms are enough to feed millions of stomachs? How the hell does that work?

Oh, no, not millions of stomachs. Just a few actually, belonging to a multiethnic group of kids.
Also, it works through leprechaun magic, obviously.

 

[Lightknight]

Considering there are far better interrogation methods, with more reliable results than torture,

Oh? Do tell *pulls up chair*. What kind of studies have you performed to corroborate your claim and what are the exact methods of interrogating with a higher success rate than torture?

What I've heard a lot of people say is that torture is bad. What I haven't heard someone say is an alternative to it if the information is that vital.

I have not made any in-depth study of the effectiveness of various interrogation methods, though I would certainly be interested in such a study.

From my limited knowledge, however, I've gathered that mind games are quite effective, which basically boils down to bluffing, lying, gaining confidence or confusing the person you're trying to gain information from. A basic example would be cross interrogation of multiple suspects, in order to catch them in lies and eventually piece together the truth.

Or you could attempt to confuse the terrorist into believing more time has passed and that the attack already took place, simply by keeping them indoors and without access to any means of telling time. Having to rely sole on you to provide that information. At that point the person might chose to gloat, and reveal the place of attack well before it happened.

Gaining the confidence of the person has been proven quite effective, if time consuming. And making deals has a long history of working out.

With torture you never know until you've checked if the information is correct, or if you are simply given what the person thinks you want in order to stop the torture. Making any information gained inherently unreliable - that's unreliable, not worthless. Meaning a constant flood of plausible information could delay the process long enough for the "subject" to die or the information you needed to become obsolete.

I might have a look to see if I can find any studies that verify what I've been told about the unreliable nature of information gained from torture, and how it's considered poor information by interrogators. But it's pretty late here and I no longer have access to where, and from who'm, I initially learned about interrogation techniques, so I it's unlikely I can produce anything more solid than Google searches at this point

My knowledge on the subject comes primarily from speaking with people within the security businesses, trained in and teaching interrogation techniques. And by that I mainly refer to people working towards event, systems, organization and personal protection (such as protecting heads of state or public persons needing to appear in public as well as a large organization).

I doubt any has actual experience with "get the terrorist to tell us where the bomb is", but I could be wrong on that. Hard to tell with ex military, they don't really care to share specifics with casual acquaintances or students - nor did I ever ask such specific questions, as we didn't (I think) officially bomb anyone at the time.
We still don't - at least to my knowledge - we just point to where the bomb needs to go and let the French or Americans do the actual bombing - which is kind of a dick way to remain neutral, imho. But it was, at least, how we used to roll. I'm in no better position than most people nowadays to find out where our allegiances lie, aside from being fairly sure it's still - at least in some areas - closely tied to our American partners; that we don't officially spy with and for, but really, we do. Oh my, we so do. And that pissed a lot of people of when that got out

Anyhow I, unfortunately, have yet to take any classes on interrogation techniques or methods - as they where not needed for my intended position. It's also been almost 7 years since I worked with security assessment, making my knowledge somewhat dated and admittedly second hand; due to not having any training or practice.

You said that there were far better methods for interrogation with more reliable results. In light of what you just said, would you consider your first claims to have been unverified and perhaps exaggeration?

What's important to note is there are some circumstances in which torture is absolutely the fastest line of work and some where it isn't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html

"If, for example, a suspect is believed to hold a piece of clear, verifiable information ? such as the whereabouts of a fellow terrorist, or a hostage who is facing imminent execution ? then the interrogator may have a relatively quick and easy way of checking what they say. There is, in other words, a tangible result to be had, and the interrogator can make it clear that the sooner that result is reached, the quicker the torture will cease. In such cases, therefore, torture can be a means to an end ? and when a hostage's life is at stake, many might deem it justified. "

So that's basically the scene that was painted here. You know that the person is a terrorist. You know that they should know a piece of information that is worth obtaining by force. Then torture is the fastest method.

"On the other hand, the "conduct under capture" training given to British forces does suggest a tacit acknowledgement by our own government that torture can have its uses in enemy hands. Troops who work behind enemy lines are generally given as little information about their mission as possible, the assumption being that even the toughest special forces soldiers can only hold out for 24 hours or so if violence is used to make them talk.

In similar vein, it also seems unlikely that the CIA would have used torture to the extent that they did if it so clearly did not work, as the Senate report appears to make out."

We are also aware of how our own guys being tortured has led to them revealing information within 24-hours.

So, while there may be certain scenarios where torture just wouldn't make that much sense. It does get information and quickly. The main problem comes when you've got someone that actually doesn't know anything. People have historically used torture to get vague non-specific information out of prisoners. That doesn't work nearly as well as working on details they should know that you need.

 

[Lightknight]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

I know you already provided an edit, but because this discussion is of a VERY serious matter, I feel that it's necessary for me to make several things very clear before I respond to the hypothetical. Torture doesn't work. We typically use it on people who haven't been found 100% guilty of being terrorists. Even if they are, there's no guarantee that they actually know anything. They'll say anything to make the pain stop, even if they don't know anything, which will yield inaccurate information, which could then harm American soldiers. Plenty of communists tried this, particularly in China. As a result innocent people died. This led to a nation wide witch hunt involving MILLIONS. You could falsely accuse people you didn't like and ruin their lives, or sell out friends and family, even though both of the individuals were innocent. Furthermore, even if someone knows intel, there's no guarantee that they will tell you the truth. Simply put, not only is torture monstrous, it doesn't work, making it completely worthless. Even that war hawk nut job John McCain agrees with that (he would know, he's been tortured).

OT: But, under your hypothetical, would I support it? Hell no. Because you've just given the government the right to torture without a trial by jury. Who gets tortured in this scenario? Is it just some foreigner? Well that makes it okay then, right? It's a foreign combatant. It's only monstrous if they do it to us. But what if the terrorist is an American citizen? Is it still okay? Do they get a trial? Have they been proven guilty? But what if there isn't enough time for a trial, and we need that intel NOW, even though we don't know if they're a terrorist. Is it okay to go ahead and torture them anyway, even though citizens are guaranteed legal protection under the constitution? Is it okay to torture other threats to the state? What constitutes a terrorist, and what constitutes a threat to the state? We've just tortured these other guys, without trial, who are American citizens. So there's a legal precedent. Can we do this to anyone who displeases the government, and who doesn't have popular support? Snowdens a traitor, right? Some people have called him a terrorist, can we torture him?

If you think this I'm being to dramatic, or that the law will save you, then Lindsey Graham would like to have a word with you:


(He's talking about American citizens)

American citizens generally have these rights. Military combatants do not. Snowden would be tried for treason.

But let's carry your comments to their inevitable conclusion. Let's say a man kidnapped a 4 year-old girl and locked her in a cabin where she has limited food and water to last her for a week. Let's say the man comes forward and admits to the crime but will not reveal her location unless x amount of dollars are wired into his wife's account in the caymans or whatever. Do you let the child starve or would you be ok with putting a candle under that asshole's feet until he gives up a real location?

Again, in situations like this I am for it. You know they're criminals, you know they know what you want to know, and the information is worth getting.

I would consider this no different from a sniper taking out a gunman who has hostages. Both are equally guilty of being in the progress of committing murder or conspiracy to commit murder and if lethality is justified then torture is a pittance comparatively.

 

[AgedGrunt]

What possible information can you get from this question? You've stripped away every last bit of relevance from the question.

You've added so many qualifiers that the question doesn't matter anymore.

What in the blue hell is so difficult about this scenario for so many people? It's like if it was about the death penalty, and in the hypothetical we remove all doubts over what a criminal has done and will continue to do beyond rehab and reintegration into society, and people flip out that this is all twisted in qualifiers and irrelevant because the death penalty is never a realistic solution and never an only-option.

For fuck's sake, just answer whether you could ever be convinced that torture is justified, or if you'd never permit it under any circumstances whatsoever.

No because torture doesn't work like it does in the movies. People would say anything to get pain to stop. Most people who support torture either never been physically tortured themselves or wouldn't have it in them to do it themselves.

Are you an expert or qualified to be a source on this? Can we have some credentials? I'm not trying to pull any sort of card like I or anyone else here is, but there are so many damn people and reports who say this who aren't the CIA, who ran an interrogation program and claim they got useful results.

Why am I not surprised no one looks into this, or even listens to the CIA? No, but you'll listen to corrupt, manipulative politicians playing for special interests and their own careers who were in charge of green-lighting this program and suddenly make out like the wool was pulled over their eyes. It's not at all amazing how easy it is for them to do it to you.

 

[Olas]

At least you could explain WHY it's ridiculous so that your hyperbole actually feels warranted. I could make the same sarcastic exaggeration towards ANY premise, it doesn't suddenly prove that the scenario is ridiculous.

You say that man landed on the moon during the 1960s in a giant rocket?

Actually a bunch of unicorns flew the men to the moon to visit the magical sugarplum fairies. There, I made your story more plausible.

It's ridiculous because it's complete fiction clouding an issue that has just become extremely important. The scenario pictured is only something Jack Bauer or The Batman would ever face. So, something closer to that, a narrative that is completely and obviously fake, is what I'm getting at.

You still haven't explained WHY. You're just reiterating that it's ridiculous, without supporting it. The fact that it's a made up scenario doesn't make it implausible, nor does the fact that it's been done in works of fiction.
If anything, the fact that writers consider it plausible enough to include in their story should lend it more credibility, not less. 24 and The Dark Knight may not be hyper-realistic, but they're not fantasy either, you would never expect to see a leprechaun show up in them.

You can't just dismiss a hypothetical scenario for being hypothetical. Strategists need to use hypothetical scenarios all the time, they're an important element of critical thought. Only when you can rationally or empirically show that a scenario is unlikely does it make sense to ignore it.

You, on the other hand, used your scenario to discredit a known fact, which doesn't really compare.

I used an example from real life so you couldn't dispute it's plausibility. My point is that any scenario, real or fictional, can be deprecated the same way. If we didn't have historical knowledge of the moon landings I doubt most people would find them any more plausible than this scenario. It was also something that was written about and depicted in works of fiction (2001 A Space Odyssey) before it had happened in real life.

Anyway, not that the plausibility of this scenario was ever really a requirement for us to discuss it. Last time I checked the plausibility of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem"]Trolley problem[/a] hasn't been a major issue for people who discuss it.

 

[Frission]

What possible information can you get from this question? You've stripped away every last bit of relevance from the question.

You've added so many qualifiers that the question doesn't matter anymore.

What in the blue hell is so difficult about this scenario for so many people? It's like if it was about the death penalty, and in the hypothetical we remove all doubts over what a criminal has done and will continue to do beyond rehab and reintegration into society, and people flip out that this is all twisted in qualifiers and irrelevant because the death penalty is never a realistic solution and never an only-option.

For fuck's sake, just answer whether you could ever be convinced that torture is justified, or if you'd never permit it under any circumstances whatsoever.

It's the equivalent of asking "Will you eat a baby?"

You can keep on adding qualifiers as much as you want, such as that you're starving, eating the baby is the only way for you to survive, the baby is an orphan anyway and would grow up to be the second Hilter and is going to end the world if you don't eat it etc...

The end result however is that the question becomes ridiculous due to too much qualifiers, because you will only keep on piling more qualifiers until the other person is forced to say yes, but since it would be so unrelated to reality it's not worth answering.

Give me any belief or agenda you have and I can keep on piling qualifiers on it's opposite until you have to say yes, even if the amount of qualifiers is ridiculous.

Of course you're also willing to trust the guys who have the most to win by covering their asses over anyone who may reason to criticize their practices, so be careful about accusing someone of being tricked, because it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You still haven't explained WHY. You're just reiterating that it's ridiculous, without supporting it. The fact that it's a made up scenario doesn't make it implausible, nor does the fact that it's been done in works of fiction.

You can't just dismiss a hypothetical scenario for being hypothetical. Strategists need to use hypothetical scenarios all the time, they're an important element of critical thought. Only when you can rationally or empirically show that a scenario is unlikely does it make sense to ignore it.

Same as what was said above and which I tried to explain. You're allowed to talk about hypotheticals, but with such timing for such a controversial issue, the other guy is allowed to call out the hypothetical scenarios for being potentially misleading, if not outright dishonest due to the way it muddies the discussion.

OT: This question is related to recent news about the CIA's and (The US's) torture program and how utterly wasteful and vicious it was. If I recall, even the intelligence agency of the US is against the CIA, not just politicians. Doesn't really matter to me, because like the NASA leaks, Abu Ghraib, Phone tapping and Guantanamo and the invasions it's just one most of the many scandals plummeting the diplomatic reputation of the U.S.

 

[Do4600]

What possible information can you get from this question? You've stripped away every last bit of relevance from the question.

You've added so many qualifiers that the question doesn't matter anymore.

What in the blue hell is so difficult about this scenario for so many people? It's like if it was about the death penalty, and in the hypothetical we remove all doubts over what a criminal has done and will continue to do beyond rehab and reintegration into society, and people flip out that this is all twisted in qualifiers and irrelevant because the death penalty is never a realistic solution and never an only-option.

For fuck's sake, just answer whether you could ever be convinced that torture is justified, or if you'd never permit it under any circumstances whatsoever.

You might as well just ask: "Imagine torture is ethical and it works, would you do it?" Nothing changes because of the stakes, it's unethical, there is no stake at which it is ethical and because torture doesn't work there is no reason to figure out at what stake a person would be willing to compromise their ethics. It's a stupid question.

No because torture doesn't work like it does in the movies. People would say anything to get pain to stop. Most people who support torture either never been physically tortured themselves or wouldn't have it in them to do it themselves.

Are you an expert or qualified to be a source on this? Can we have some credentials? I'm not trying to pull any sort of card like I or anyone else here is, but there are so many damn people and reports who say this who aren't the CIA, who ran an interrogation program and claim they got useful results.

Why am I not surprised no one looks into this, or even listens to the CIA? No, but you'll listen to corrupt, manipulative politicians playing for special interests and their own careers who were in charge of green-lighting this program and suddenly make out like the wool was pulled over their eyes. It's not at all amazing how easy it is for them to do it to you.

The US army training manual's chapter on intelligence states; "...The use of force is a poor technique as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. "

Napoleon Bonaparte said: "The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know."

This is particularly true of Marcus McDilda who was shot down over Japan during World War II and brutally tortured about the United States nuclear arsenal. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." It's often thought that this "confession" with others of the same kind contributed to Japan's surrender.

So why should I accept verbatim what the CIA is saying when torture hasn't been proven to yield good intelligence? For centuries military commanders and interrogators have known that torture is a terror technique, it doesn't provide useful intelligence. So why should I listen to the CIA when what they're saying sounds suspiciously incongruent to hundreds of years of information on the subject?