Torture Can Be Useful, Nearly Half of Americans in Poll Say

[RandallFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/wo...-say.html?_r=0

Nearly half of Americans in a global survey said they believed an enemy fighter could be tortured to extract information, according to results released Monday. That finding puts respondents in the United States in contrast with citizens of many countries and at odds with international law, which prohibits torture under any circumstances.The results were part of a poll carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which surveyed 17,000 people in 16 countries, including many nations in conflict or recovering from conflict, to gauge public opinion about the laws of war.
The findings on torture were among the starkest. Among Americans, 46 percent said torture could be used to obtain information from an enemy combatant, while 30 percent disagreed and the rest said they did not know.

[The Gold Standard]

Well, if a majority, or plurality, says so, then it must be the right thing to do.

[The Northbreather]

A result attempting to legislate morality for decades..

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, Gen, James Mattis, is opposed to torture and says it doesn't work.

Dr. James Mitchell, the person who actually performed all CIA waterboarding, prefers not to use torture or waterboarding as it's mostly ineffective and prone to incorrect, counter-productive use. He pretty much says the ONLY time it MIGHT be appropriate is under the "ticking time bomb" scenario (and that is a bogus, fantasy scenario, used by propagandists to push for torture - B4L).

Interview with Mitchell:

[juleswin]

I think I would have answered that torture CAN be useful but I would still be against it. But I am still against torture because of the treaties we signed, it may be abused, doesn't work all the time and the fact that I would like some protection for civilians at home and troops abroad if they are captured by the enemy some day. But to deny torture can work in certain situations is just being stupid.

[undergroundrr]

I think I would have answered that torture CAN be useful but I would still be against it. But I am still against torture because of the treaties we signed, it may be abused, doesn't work all the time and the fact that I would like some protection for civilians at home and troops abroad if they are captured by the enemy some day. But to deny torture can work in certain situations is just being stupid.

The expressions "can be useful" and "can work" are pretty vague.

To ignore morality, the pragmatic concern is whether torture can be shown to produce more true information than false/distorted/misleading information.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think I would have answered that torture CAN be useful but I would still be against it. But I am still against torture because of the treaties we signed, it may be abused, doesn't work all the time and the fact that I would like some protection for civilians at home and troops abroad if they are captured by the enemy some day. But to deny torture can work in certain situations is just being stupid.

So I guess you side with the 46% of Americans who believe torture can work.

[juleswin]

The expressions "can be useful" and "can work" are pretty vague.

To ignore morality, the pragmatic concern is whether torture can be shown to produce more true information than false/distorted/misleading information.

I don't think the question is that vague, I consider it more like an out to allow the voter to say yes. The morality, efficiency and legality of it is question for another poll. But for this particular poll, I would have voted with the majority. Btw, I think if you have the right person in custody, the efficiency of torture goes up by a ton.

[juleswin]

So I guess you side with the 46% of Americans who believe torture can work.

Yes, this instant I swim with the majority.

[dannno]

So I guess you side with the 46% of Americans who believe torture can work.

Of course torture CAN work.

The question is how often it works, in what situations, and whether and what modes of torture are morally acceptable. Imprisoning a person is a form of torture, so is shining a bright light at them... not just waterboarding or cutting off a toe.

[oyarde]

Not effective .

[oyarde]

I would guess the 46 percent have not served , have not been in combat and know no person who has been tortured.

[undergroundrr]

Of course torture CAN work.

The question is how often it works, in what situations, and whether and what modes of torture are morally acceptable. Imprisoning a person is a form of torture, so is shining a bright light at them... not just waterboarding or cutting off a toe.

When I read "works," I can't help including that a forced testimony that may or may not be true may serve the purpose of the interrogator. In other words, falsehood works as well as truth in many cases.

The Gulag Archipelago is one of my formative books. Leaving aside future mind-manipulation mechanical/electronic devices, it seems doubtful that anybody will exceed the scientific precision with which the KGB could extract a confession that served its purposes. Anything goes in a closed, locked room.

[69360]

Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, Gen, James Mattis, is opposed to torture and says it doesn't work.

Dr. James Mitchell, the person who actually performed all CIA waterboarding, prefers not to use torture or waterboarding as it's mostly ineffective and prone to incorrect, counter-productive use. He pretty much says the ONLY time it MIGHT be appropriate is under the "ticking time bomb" scenario (and that is a bogus, fantasy scenario, used by propagandists to push for torture - B4L).

I think there is some validity to the whole ticking time bomb theory. 99% of the time I am opposed to torture. Show me a known proven beyond a doubt terrorist leader, show me a known beyond a doubt imminent attack. In that almost impossible scenario, I can see giving torture a shot. Any doubt about either, don't do it. The standard of proof before it's done needs to be incredibly high and should need multiple top leadership to sign off on it, including potus. In this rare circumstance, I can live with one terrorist suffering so Americans live. We can't be waterboarding the guy who cut Bin Laden's lawn once.

[TheTexan]

Of course torture can be useful, has noone seen 24?

[UWDude]

I think I would have answered that torture CAN be useful

And that is all the pollster would hear.

This is a non-story.

Torture can be effective.

But who and why you are torturing... ..can be a real mess.

[TheCount]

I think there is some validity to the whole ticking time bomb theory. 99% of the time I am opposed to torture. Show me a known proven beyond a doubt terrorist leader, show me a known beyond a doubt imminent attack. In that almost impossible scenario, I can see giving torture a shot.

When he lies to his torturers to get them to stop, they will have no idea that it's a lie. The attack will occur anyway.

[juleswin]

And that is all the pollster would hear.

This is a non-story.

Torture can be effective.

But who and why you are torturing... ..can be a real mess.

I would like to torture TheTexan to see if I can get him to be serious for just for a day. That is torture that would work and on the right person. I choose waterboarding because just about every human being is terrified about oxygen deprivation.

Now I need to find where he lives and if there is water on that planet

[PierzStyx]

Of course torture can be useful, has noone seen 24?

And this is exactly it. Shows like 24 program the masses into thinking torture can be effective and moral, thus getting them to moralize and justify it when it happens in reality.

Reality is that torture simply does not work and has never given actionable intel, not even in the "ticking bomb" scenario.

The Intelligence Science Board are entrusted with the task of providing scientific advice to the United States intelligence community. In 2006 they produced their study on 'Educing Information', a collection of 11 papers studying various aspects of the science and art of interrogation. The authors of this document make the same point that I opened this article with:

Listening to the post-9/11 debate over guidelines for the interrogation of terrorist suspects, one could easily conclude that coercive methods are not only effective, but also substantially more effective than non-coercive methods in obtaining actionable intelligence from resistant sources. Even those opposed to the use of coercive methods fail to challenge this premise, exclusively focusing their arguments instead on the legal and moral issues at stake. (p130)

And this is surprising, because it's such a weak premise. For the sake of completeness and balance it would be nice at this point to be able to show and discuss some evidence that favours the use of torture. I can't, because in reality, as the report notes, and as I found myself as I trawled the archives searching for material for this piece:

The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information.(p130)

In spite of decades of use, and ample opportunity to gather statistics, there just isn't any scientific evidence beyond a few dubious anecdotes to show that torture works. Torture is an extreme method, and before we even reach the ethical and moral debate over its use, the effectiveness of it must be demonstrated to some reasonable degree. The burden of proof lies with the people who seek to torture. Any trials would of course be deeply unethical, but it's not like they don't have plenty of past experience to draw data from.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/.../2010/nov/04/2

[juleswin]

When he lies to his torturers to get them to stop, they will have no idea that it's a lie. The attack will occur anyway.

You know, I was watching a True crime program yesterday, the one they show on HLN channel. One of the stories they showcased was about a woman who was kidnapped by some robbers. After she was captured, they asked her for her debit card PIN number by threatening to shoot the cat which made her to give up the PIN number. Anyway, one robber the daughter of the robber stayed with the victim while the father went to withdraw money from her account. The PIN number turned out to be wrong and he came back angry beat her up, got the right PIN and then killed her.

So the detectives got clues that father and daughter were involved and started questioning the robbers for the where about of the woman. Both refused to talk until they threatened the daughter with the death penalty (which is a form of torture) and she started talking. He confessed and ratted her dad out. She gave them motive, the location where they buried her and how she was killed. She got 30 yrs in prison.

So in this true story scenario, the original torture failed because it did not go far enough and the second one (plus the police threat) worked because they dangled the potential of death to the captive individual. Failing one time doesn't mean the torture is over especially when time is on the side of the torturer. You just keep trying until they extract the information they want.

[Danke]

we don't torture we are a civilized nation

[TheCount]

...

I think that you missed the whole concept of the imminent terrorist threat. In such a case, you will not be able to confirm the validity of the information prior to the attack.

Also, what you described as successful is legal and does not count as torture. Conducting a mock execution of the girl would be torture, and is a technique that we actually used. Also not effective.

[otherone]

Who gave folks the authority to torture?
Hard to believe that people on the SLPC watchlist thinks it's ok.

[juleswin]

I think that you missed the whole concept of the imminent terrorist threat. In such a case, you will not be able to confirm the validity of the information prior to the attack.

Also, what you described as successful is legal and does not count as torture. Conducting a mock execution of the girl would be torture, and is a technique that we actually used. Also not effective.

But why is one method effective and the other not effective? There is very little really difference between what you call legal torture like solitary confinements, playing Nickleback music etc to illegal torture like water boarding. The human body realize that they are experiencing tactile, cognitive, auditory etc stress that can be stopped if they perform some action and they perform said action to the best of their ability for said stress to stop.

I really don't know why you think legal torture works while illegal torture doesn't work.

[Danke]

Some think it can work:

"The case of Lt Col Allen West has become a cause célèbre in the US as conservatives have flooded radio talk shows in support of his self-defence claim, arguing that the information helped his unit avoid an ambush."

[lilymc]

Another poll for the purpose of forming opinion, rather than informing.

[oyarde]

Some think it can work:

"The case of Lt Col Allen West has become a cause célèbre in the US as conservatives have flooded radio talk shows in support of his self-defence claim, arguing that the information helped his unit avoid an ambush."

Torturing the enemy is not effective . What is effective is killing them all . If you are getting ambushed you are not doing it right . That means your path was predictable , you are using the road and you did not know what was in front of you . All of those will get you killed .Unacceptable .

[juleswin]

Another poll for the purpose of forming opinion, rather than informing.

How do you use a poll to inform? the purpose of a poll is to gauge the beliefs of the public. Not to form opinion but to extract what that opinion is.

[lilymc]

How do you use a poll to inform? the purpose of a poll is to gauge the beliefs of the public. Not to form opinion but to extract what that opinion is.

Right, that's what polls are supposed to be about. But in the last couple decades or so (I remember this happening a lot when clinton was president) they're being used for another purpose - to condition or sway the public in a certain direction.

A lot of people have a herd mentality. They want to be on the side of the majority... instead of an oddball or freak. To give an example, if the powers-that-be want to normalize transgenderism (which has already happened, pretty much) one of the things they might do is put out polls that say something like "75% of Americans believe that transgenderism is not a disorder, but a genuine phenomenon in which one's gender identity differs from their assigned sex."

That sways people who do not have a firm foundation to think, "Oh... I don't want to be thought of as a dinosaur or a bigot. I guess it really is a normal thing."

They also do that to get people behind a particular person, like Hillary or Obama, for example. "A recent poll shows that 85% of people think that Obama is a great leader." (or what have you... you get the point.)


That was the very long answer to your question.

[DamianTV]

$#@! you, Frank!