5 ms·

It is frequent that it's believed to happen. It's possible, but seems unlikely, that it has literally happened, torture has worked and then the US government ha

It is frequent that it's believed to happen. It's possible, but seems unlikely, that it has literally happened, torture has worked and then the US government has somehow not crowed about it. They are looking very hard for scenarios to justify their use of torture, and the results they have revealed (e.g. from waterboarding Al Qaeda members) aren't inspiring, so far. It appears, for instance, that waterboarding people many times (in a few cases, 100+ times) isn't enough to keep them from lying to you.

nickff 11y ago
Whether the US government is 'good' at extracting information through torture is irrelevant to any discussion of the efficacy of torture, or its morality. Some might argue that the US was simply too restrained in the pain and suffering it subjected the subjects to; others might argue that the US 'tortured hard enough', but it is not possible to achieve 'better' results. Similarly, there could be a discussion of whether it was morally permissible for the US government to torture.
- anon4 11y ago
  I feel the entire point is whether torture can work. Because if it cannot, there's no point to making people suffer. If we can get the information in some other way, then those should be tried instead. Bribing could work. Offering them a safe place to live for them and their family could work. A lot of things other than making them suffer could work.
- angelbob 11y ago
  Whether the US gov't is good at it is irrelevant, if we assume somebody else could plausibly be better. But if they're anywhere near an upper bound, then whether they (a well-informed first-world superpower with a huge budget and a willingness to extradite people to places like Syria where there are effectively no rules) can make torture work is very relevant. Because if they can't, and torture is useless, then clearly the question is effectively resolved, at least in the real world. If torture is simply ineffective in real-world scenarios then the question goes away.

nickff 11y ago

Whether the US government is 'good' at extracting information through torture is irrelevant to any discussion of the efficacy of torture, or its morality. Some might argue that the US was simply too restrained in the pain and suffering it subjected the subjects to; others might argue that the US 'tortured hard enough', but it is not possible to achieve 'better' results. Similarly, there could be a discussion of whether it was morally permissible for the US government to torture.

anon4 11y ago
I feel the entire point is whether torture can work. Because if it cannot, there's no point to making people suffer. If we can get the information in some other way, then those should be tried instead. Bribing could work. Offering them a safe place to live for them and their family could work. A lot of things other than making them suffer could work.
angelbob 11y ago
Whether the US gov't is good at it is irrelevant, if we assume somebody else could plausibly be better. But if they're anywhere near an upper bound, then whether they (a well-informed first-world superpower with a huge budget and a willingness to extradite people to places like Syria where there are effectively no rules) can make torture work is very relevant. Because if they can't, and torture is useless, then clearly the question is effectively resolved, at least in the real world. If torture is simply ineffective in real-world scenarios then the question goes away.