So. Torture.

[Frankster]

If it consistently failed to provide any benefit, neither the CIA nor any other intelligence network worth a damn would employ its use.

This is an extract from one of the research papers that came up during my google search (https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf is full link)

"Although torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist be-
cause it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a
sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows
a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation
room (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009). As one scholar put it, ?Even though torture is
not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological
appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis? (McCoy, 2006,
p. 207). Particularly in the aftermath of a horrible attack, like that which occurred
on 9/11/2001, torture may be emotionally appealing. But it is worth considering
whether the use of torture is truly motivated by a desire to gain valuable informa-
tion, or by a desire to overcome a sense of powerlessness and to restore control,
or even by a basic desire for revenge."

I think there's a kernel of truth in there even if I dont 100% believe only reason we still use torture is it cos it makes the interrogators feel tough, I do get what you're saying about it being a tool used in conjunction with others.

Very well I'll respect your insight, as it stands I won't be making the claim "torture doesn't work" as freely, or if I do it'll be with the caveat "torture someone well enough and they will confess anything!" (uses of torture in communist russia on political dissidents and uses of torture during the inquisition supports that part of my beliefs at least).

 

[RedDeadFred]

Let's see...
Thousands of people die, but at least a terrorist is okay, or...
Thousands of people live, and the terrorist goes through incredible pain.

Ya, I'll take the first option. Seems like a pretty easy choice. OP, if you want to make this a bit more morally challenging, maybe decrease the chance of getting the right information from the terrorist to 50%.

I don't support torture IRL, but in this scenario, it seems morally reprehensible to not support it. Just my opinion though.

 

[Gorrath]

If it consistently failed to provide any benefit, neither the CIA nor any other intelligence network worth a damn would employ its use.

This is an extract from one of the research papers that came up during my google search (https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf is full link)

"Although torture does not produce reliable information, it may persist be-
cause it satisfies psychological needs in times of stress. Specifically, it counters a
sense of desperation, reassures interrogators that they are in control, and bestows
a feeling of empowerment, at least in the enclosed world of the interrogation
room (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009). As one scholar put it, ?Even though torture is
not, on balance, effective or rational, it persists through its deep psychological
appeal, to the powerful and the powerless alike, in times of crisis? (McCoy, 2006,
p. 207). Particularly in the aftermath of a horrible attack, like that which occurred
on 9/11/2001, torture may be emotionally appealing. But it is worth considering
whether the use of torture is truly motivated by a desire to gain valuable informa-
tion, or by a desire to overcome a sense of powerlessness and to restore control,
or even by a basic desire for revenge."

I think there's a kernel of truth in there even if I dont 100% believe only reason we still use torture is it cos it makes the interrogators feel tough, I do get what you're saying about it being a tool used in conjunction with others.

Very well I'll respect your insight, as it stands I won't be making the claim "torture doesn't work" as freely, or if I do it'll be with the caveat "torture someone well enough and they will confess anything!" (uses of torture in communist russia on political dissidents and uses of torture during the inquisition supports that part of my beliefs at least).

I've read papers like that one before and they certainly do show that torture, on its own, is not effective. The insight provided by such papers is not bad either but as I mentioned, does not account for how the CIA and other agencies actually do business. Those practices are a matter of operational security, which is why I cannot go into greater detail about them than I have. It is also worth noting that even with all the methods combined, we still get bad intelligence and fuck ups, so it's anything but a sure-fire method.

What your goal is when you begin to torture someone can have a big effect on the outcome of the torture, so if you simply want someone to confess to something, you can get almost anyone to confess to almost anything, it's true. If you're torturing with the goal to gather useful intelligence, you'll have certain ways of going about it that mitigates some of the problems that might arise from the method (for instance, giving someone a concussion is NOT a good way to get them to reveal good info, it makes them confused and disoriented, so you won't be punching them in the face like you see in so many movies.)

Anyway, thanks for listening. I don't expect you or anyone to take my word on this and I highly recommend looking at as many sources as possible. You will find people in every part of the intelligence community who argues about torture and its efficacy. I can only offer what I know based on my experience and training so I appreciate you accepting that insight based on my word. I don't expect to convince anyone based on that alone; I am not that arrogant. Thanks!

 

[gandhi the peacemake]

I had a long-winded exploration of the realities of this hypothetical world written down, but in the end, I realized that it all basically boils down to this question:

Do you have enough imagination to dream up fantasy worlds?

I do, yes. Neil Gaiman once wrote that fantasies are mirrors that seem to reflect our truths back at us, but that if you set a mirror the right way, it can lie so convincingly that you'll have, in this case, believed you supported the practice of torture when in fact you haven't.

So yes, in a world in which this scenario is a real thing, I would either wholeheartedly support it because I exist within this world and thus am subject to its realities (and I would in fact not be me at all) or not give a damn because I exist in, as far as I know, the real world, not one governed by the same realities as that one, and would have no interest in the outcome one way or another.

...which begs the question of why you would want to ask this question at all, it having little value as far as intelligent discussion is concerned. One has to assume that the recently-disclosed report of CIA torture against alleged terrorists has something to do with it, and your framing of the question such that one is highly incentivized to support torture seems to be an attempt on your part, whether knowingly or not, to defend these CIA practices.

Or it could just be coincidence that you bring up this hypothetical scenario within the same time frame as the disclosing of this report, in which case it remains a question lacking in discussion value.

But I suppose the why of it isn't that important. To reiterate my answer: Yes, in a world in which this scenario is a real thing, I would either support it because I exist in it or I would not care because I don't exist in it.

 

[Gorrath]

If it consistently failed to provide any benefit, neither the CIA nor any other intelligence network worth a damn would employ its use.

That's what I'm saying, though. The CIA isn't worth a damn. They are a largely unaccountable agency created in a time of fear to perpetrate actions that our government could plausibly deny. The information the CIA has provided has consistently been either utterly wrong, above what has later been found to be true, or woefully inadequate.

My point is that using them as an example is pushing your point in the wrong direction.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that your idea of the CIA has been shaped pretty much wholly by media reports? Your comment here seems loaded with such strong disdain for the agency that I can't imagine you've much other understanding about their operations. I don't mean that as an attack on your person, but I would caution that if that's where your opinion is coming from, then as an obviously rational and intelligent person, you certainly can see that media representation of ANY organization is slanted in the extreme.

But, even if you want to hold fast to that opinion of the CIA, it hardly dampens my point at all. The CIA is only one of many intelligence organizations from around the world who employ torture as a method for gathering intelligence. It is not at all an uncommon practice.

I realize that making an, "If you only knew what I know," argument makes me look like an ass. I can't help it though since I have no method for giving you my insight into these things. I don't expect you or anyone to simply take my word for it though. Hell, in the intelligence community itself torture is hotly debated. But it persists because we have used it to gain major breakthroughs that led directly to results most of which you'll never hear a peep about because reporting them would require revealing operational details that are classified.

Unfortunately, enough people who come from a similar background in this stuff will argue that it is effective. They know because they've been involved. People who want to argue that because it's effective, we should do it need only cite those individuals. Of course you or I can site people with similar knowledge who claim it isn't effective, but that just becomes a he-said, she-said game that will convince no one. That's why I stick with the ethical arguments, they are actually less muddy than this one, which is saying something.

 

[Riekle Wiersma]

Depends on who's getting tortured, what method is being used, and what information they're trying to gather. For a confirmed Al Quadea member whose not going to get much worse than water-boarding who has critical information that could potentially save lives? Fuck yeah it's ok. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than what they deserve and done. I honestly don't see the big deal about water-boarding, it's pretty much the mildest form of torture out there especially when you have a doctor making sure the recipient is ok.

Waterboarding is actually pretty goddamn horrible and by no means mild.. Also, torture is not about what the receiving party (the confirmed Al Quadea member in question) deserves, it's about how far you're willing to go to get the information that you want. As mentioned before, i'm of a opinion that you lose far more then you gain not to mention the psychological impact on the torturer (assumming he/she is not a psychopath).

 

[Lionsfan]

100% Absolutely torture the person.
This specific scenario makes it seem negligent to simply let the event happen.

I'm completely against torture in real life because situations are never going to be this clear cut. I'm told that torture in real life is an ineffective means of getting reliable information. I want to believe this to be true. So being able to apply this clear cut 'greater good' rationale no longer works.

Well, I've got some bad news unfortunately. Torture does work. Not all the time but there are plenty of cases where torture has directly led to such plots being discovered and dismantled before they could come to fruition. If your only defense against torture is an efficacy one, then you've lost the argument. I'm engaged with two other posters over exactly this problem. You can want to believe that it's ineffective. Hell, many people do! But at the end of the day, if you don't oppose it on moral/ethical grounds, and you honestly do think you would be negligent in NOT torturing someone in the scenario given, then you should support torture.

I don't agree though that torturing someone for information is okay, no matter what the outcome and no matter how sure you are that the information is reliable. If torture really didn't work, the CIA wouldn't do it. It does work though, often enough for it to be rationalized if you don't care about the moral and ethical problems.

The CIA messing around in 3rd World Countries hasn't worked for 70 years, but it doesn't stop them from still doing it

 

[Lightknight]

From what I've seen, we get actionable information from the torture despite what people tried to say. As long as we know these are terrorists then this is a necessary evil. There are forms of torture that go to far and I would never be ok with (broom handle up the anus for example or any kind of mutilation). But if I refused to give up information that would save lives I would expect to be tortured for it. Same way I would expect to be killed if I was actively endangering lives. I don't want anyone to be tortured, but I don't want lives to be lost more. Simple as that.

 

[wAriot]

No, I wouldn't.
Period.
No, not even if my father was in the building.
Torture isn't a "last resort", it's just something that shouldn't ever be done, at least nowadays. There are many other ways of obtaining information that don't involve causing pain to people. So no, I don't support it.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I hate this type of nonsense. This question is designed to elicit a yes response. It is like saying "if you had to molest a child to stop a gunman from killing yourself and that child, and that gunman will definitely kill you both and there is no hope of rescue, would you molest the child".

Why even both to ask a question that is so heavily stacked in favor of an abhorrent practice which has been proven time and time again to be one of the LEAST effective intelligence gathering tools?

EDIT: I will still answer your question. No. I recommend everyone reading this thread to read the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", it asks us the question, what price is worth paying to live a life of prosperity and success.

 

[Gorrath]

100% Absolutely torture the person.
This specific scenario makes it seem negligent to simply let the event happen.

I'm completely against torture in real life because situations are never going to be this clear cut. I'm told that torture in real life is an ineffective means of getting reliable information. I want to believe this to be true. So being able to apply this clear cut 'greater good' rationale no longer works.

Well, I've got some bad news unfortunately. Torture does work. Not all the time but there are plenty of cases where torture has directly led to such plots being discovered and dismantled before they could come to fruition. If your only defense against torture is an efficacy one, then you've lost the argument. I'm engaged with two other posters over exactly this problem. You can want to believe that it's ineffective. Hell, many people do! But at the end of the day, if you don't oppose it on moral/ethical grounds, and you honestly do think you would be negligent in NOT torturing someone in the scenario given, then you should support torture.

I don't agree though that torturing someone for information is okay, no matter what the outcome and no matter how sure you are that the information is reliable. If torture really didn't work, the CIA wouldn't do it. It does work though, often enough for it to be rationalized if you don't care about the moral and ethical problems.

The CIA messing around in 3rd World Countries hasn't worked for 70 years, but it doesn't stop them from still doing it

I get that people want to view the CIA as one great jumble-fuck of pants-on-head incompetence but it simply isn't an accurate picture of the organization. Yes the CIA fucks up and yes our policies in various parts of the world have led to disastrous results but pinning the failure of American foreign policy on the CIA is ridiculous. The fallacy of scope you're making here is pretty egregious. Does the failure of American policy in Central America demonstrate that wire tapping isn't effective?

I understand that people can read my statement there and see a fallacy. If I were claiming that, "I know torture works because the CIA keeps doing it," that would indeed be a fallacy. But as I already clarified in another post, what I mean when I say that is this, "I know torture can be an effective method of gathering intelligence and that's why the CIA continues to employ it." I am not arguing that it follows naturally that CIA's use of it proves it works. I am saying that my personal understand of the situation leads me to believe that if it didn't work, the CIA wouldn't use it. This knowledge of the situation is first hand, not contingent on constructing a logical syllogism. I do not expect you or anyone to take my first hand account of the situation as gospel truth, I am simply sharing what I know.

What's more, the CIA is not the only intelligence organization to use torture as a method of gathering intelligence, so if you want to focus on the CIA's screw ups, that's cool but it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Amir Kondori]

From what I've seen, we get actionable information from the torture despite what people tried to say. As long as we know these are terrorists then this is a necessary evil. There are forms of torture that go to far and I would never be ok with (broom handle up the anus for example or any kind of mutilation). But if I refused to give up information that would save lives I would expect to be tortured for it. Same way I would expect to be killed if I was actively endangering lives. I don't want anyone to be tortured, but I don't want lives to be lost more. Simple as that.

Has actionable intelligence been gained through torture? Sure. Was that the only way or even the best way to get the information? All studies ever done say no, Napoleon said no, many former intelligence analysts have said no. The consensus seems to be that not only are we violating our principles and giving recruitment material to terrorist, not only are we giving the people of the middle east and across the globe a reason to hate us, but we are doing it for no good reason.

Your justification of getting "actionable information" from bad people falls down further when you examine all the cases where innocent people were detained and tortured by the US. There are several cases of people in the wrong place at the wrong time who were turned over to the US for the payout. The Northern Alliance was known for picking up any likely looking person and selling them to the US as a terrorist suspect. A few of those detained have been released, but many who are likely completely innocent remain detained, with no hope of trial or a chance to prove their innocence.

There is one other thought experiment I want to ask anyone who supports torture to take with me. Right now all the talk of torture has been about foreign nationals, people with brown skin, Muslims, and I think for many people that makes the idea of torture more palatable. Let us take the same idea, that torture to possibly prevent an attack is OK but change the specifics a little bit.

Let us say Timothy McVeigh is picked up after committing the Oklahoma City bombing. That attack killed 168 people and injured over 600 more. Now there were some concerns he had placed more explosives at unknown locations during this time. Do we torture Timothy McVeigh to find out if he has done so and if so where the bombs are?

If you say yes to the above situation then at least you are consistent in your beliefs. If you changed your answer to that question what makes it OK in the first case but not OK in the second?

 

[Gorrath]

From what I've seen, we get actionable information from the torture despite what people tried to say. As long as we know these are terrorists then this is a necessary evil. There are forms of torture that go to far and I would never be ok with (broom handle up the anus for example or any kind of mutilation). But if I refused to give up information that would save lives I would expect to be tortured for it. Same way I would expect to be killed if I was actively endangering lives. I don't want anyone to be tortured, but I don't want lives to be lost more. Simple as that.

I read a lot of your posts and often agree with some portion of them. I think you're a pretty awesome poster even when you disagree with people, including myself. I say this because I want to personally implore you to consider the following:

Let me say that, while torture does indeed lead to actionable intelligence (as you can see, I'm currently arguing the hell out of this point) it still should not be employed. As someone who has personal links to this matter, it is not a necessary evil. If we as a nation accept that torture is something we must do, then we have accepted that we are nothing but the imperialist jackasses some believe us to be. Once you cross the line and start justifying atrocities by their outcome, there is no atrocity we cannot justify. I will not accept that and I think neither should you. With all the sincerity in me, please reconsider this position.

 

[Lightknight]

From what I've seen, we get actionable information from the torture despite what people tried to say. As long as we know these are terrorists then this is a necessary evil. There are forms of torture that go to far and I would never be ok with (broom handle up the anus for example or any kind of mutilation). But if I refused to give up information that would save lives I would expect to be tortured for it. Same way I would expect to be killed if I was actively endangering lives. I don't want anyone to be tortured, but I don't want lives to be lost more. Simple as that.

I read a lot of your posts and often agree with some portion of them. I think you're a pretty awesome poster even when you disagree with people, including myself.

Thank you, I've really enjoyed the dialogue we've had on the site as well. Disagreements and agreements alike.

I say this because I want to personally implore you to consider the following:

Let me say that, while torture does indeed lead to actionable intelligence (as you can see, I'm currently arguing the hell out of this point) it still should not be employed. As someone who has personal links to this matter, it is not a necessary evil. If we as a nation accept that torture is something we must do, then we have accepted that we are nothing but the imperialist jackasses some believe us to be. Once you cross the line and start justifying atrocities by their outcome, there is no atrocity we cannot justify. I will not accept that and I think neither should you. With all the sincerity in me, please reconsider this position.

I've heard this rhetoric used, but what's the case for this being a special line that shouldn't be crossed?

In a scenario in which the person does have the information you need and it will save lives, why is it more just to let those people die when it's in your power to stop them without causing permanent physical damage or death by your own hands to obtain the information?

As I said in my original post. If I were a soldier or a police sniper of some kind and had the opportunity to shoot someone who was actively about to kill people, I would, to protect those people. I see no inherent difference between these two things. Both are complicit in the harm of those people. Both can stop it from happening and are instead engaged in supporting it. Both would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and would get life sentences if caught and convicted after the fact.

Do you have a particular reason to believe that this moral imperative outweighs the other? That sanctity of human life is less worthy of protection than individual right to not be forced to give up information that would save those lives?

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of forms of torture I wouldn't be ok with in any circumstance. There are also a lot of pieces of information that do not outweigh the need to not stoop to torture. But human life is a slam dunk for me.

 

[Lightknight]

Your justification of getting "actionable information" from bad people falls down further when you examine all the cases where innocent people were detained and tortured by the US.

The parameters of the scenario given by the post guidelines is that you know pretty darn well that the person being tortured is a terrorist and likely has the needed information.

I'm not for taking a random person off the streets and torturing them just to see if they have some good information. That would be akin to American Police circa 1920 rounding up every black guy on the street if a crime was committed just because they're black.

No, I think there needs to be a threshold of certainty that needs to be crossed before a candidate for torture is selected. You need to know that they are, in fact, terrorists and as such detained legally. You should have some reason to believe that they would actually know the thing they say they aren't knowing. But this isn't just in all cases in my mind either. This wouldn't apply for POWs, for example. Unless there were plans to bomb civilians or something that doesn't fit into just war theory.

 

[babinro]

100% Absolutely torture the person.
This specific scenario makes it seem negligent to simply let the event happen.

I'm completely against torture in real life because situations are never going to be this clear cut. I'm told that torture in real life is an ineffective means of getting reliable information. I want to believe this to be true. So being able to apply this clear cut 'greater good' rationale no longer works.

Well, I've got some bad news unfortunately. Torture does work. Not all the time but there are plenty of cases where torture has directly led to such plots being discovered and dismantled before they could come to fruition. If your only defense against torture is an efficacy one, then you've lost the argument. I'm engaged with two other posters over exactly this problem. You can want to believe that it's ineffective. Hell, many people do! But at the end of the day, if you don't oppose it on moral/ethical grounds, and you honestly do think you would be negligent in NOT torturing someone in the scenario given, then you should support torture.

I don't agree though that torturing someone for information is okay, no matter what the outcome and no matter how sure you are that the information is reliable. If torture really didn't work, the CIA wouldn't do it. It does work though, often enough for it to be rationalized if you don't care about the moral and ethical problems.

The difference between the example and reality is certainty.

Torturing someone with guaranteed results is a different issue to me. I stand by my answer to this scenario and if I'm to be labeled as someone who is pro-torture as a result than so be it.

The reason why I don't take the same stance in real life events is because now you're playing with odds. I have no idea what these odds are but they certainly aren't 100%. Reality is a lot more complex than this scenario and it offers alternative solutions. As such, I don't feel it is morally or ethically right to simply take a CHANCE even when many more lives are at stake.

I have my morals/ethics...but I'm not willing to hold onto them no matter the cost.

 

[jklinders]

This question is so incredibly loaded as to produce no discussion value at all. Imma gonna repeat how others have prefaced their responses. In the real world torture is unreliable and cannot be guaranteed to do the required result.

In this mind bogglingly loaded fantasy scenario, being that torture is the only way to stop the attack and we are trading the dignity of one life vs many...yes I support it. Not because hurting people is right but preventing the loss of many other lives is preferable to not preventing it. It's simply cold math. thousands vs one with some weird god like certainty over the equation.

Now my comment on this question goes thusly. We tend not to know any such thing with utter godlike certainty. We don't always know that there is an attack the next day with 100% accuracy. We don't always know the mook we have has the needed info and we don't always know that he is going to give good info if we peel off his skin or deep fry his genitals and feed them to him or whatever. I utterly do not support doing this kind of crap as a matter of routine and doubt highly that ever doing it at all is more effective than other methods of interrogation. if there is discussion value to be had here, I am having a very hard time seeing it.

 

[Augustine]

An unrealistic fantasy scenario without an equally unrealistic options to choose from? I am at an impasse, truly.

What are you actually trying to ask? Do ends justify the means?

They often do. But there is value in maintaining higher moral principles. I would would flatly state that I will not make that decision. Resign, if need be.

 

[Frission]

Yes, but I'll also say yes if a fairy popped up and offered me world peace.

The scenario is too far away from real life that it's not applicable. The question is too loaded. Torture is a terrible act.