4 ms·

Right, but the point of the article is that they were doing it to the wrong person. That doesn't mean it does not work. Causation does not imply correlation.

CocaKoala 11y ago
If it takes you more than 83 separate instances of waterboarding somebody to decide that they don't have useful information to share with you, then waterboarding is not an efficient way to get reliable information. If waterboarding is not an efficient way to get reliable information, then I'd be very curious to hear about what definition of "work" you're using where waterboarding might satisfy, but fail in this particular instance.
- overcast 11y ago
  For all the times it didn't work, how many times did it work for others? One person, with no information, doesn't mean anything.
  - chishaku 11y ago
    "Here are eight cases cited in the report where the C.I.A. made the case that its tactics thwarted plots and led to the capture of terrorists, and how the committee's report undercut those accounts." http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-torture-work-the-cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-tor... Full report: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/senate-intelligence-committee-study-on-cia-detention-and-interrogation-program http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/senate-inte... Torture is illegal under the Eight Amendment. The Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times. If we're going to go against legal precedent as well as international convention, the burden of proof for torture's effectiveness is on torture advocates. The evidence provided does not stand up to scrutiny.
  - CocaKoala 11y ago
    Your question is poorly formed because the basis of my comment was asking how you defined "work" in the context of waterboarding. You didn't provide any sort of definition, you just said "Well, maybe it worked for other people". But if it doesn't work reliably, for whatever "work" means, then it doesn't matter if it's successful sometimes and unsuccessful other times because if you don't have a way to distinguish the success from the failure, it's impossible to measure. That's why I asked you to clarify what you mean when you say it might "work".
  - anentropic 11y ago
    well, either it means they were just gratuitously torturing him for fun, or it means they can't tell whether they were getting any useful information or if he had any to give neither option suggests the technique is useful it's also about as immoral as you can get
naasking 11y ago
> Right, but the point of the article is that they were doing it to the wrong person. That doesn't mean it does not work. Causation does not imply correlation. I think this case make it obvious that it's impossible to tell if the person you're torturing has the information you're looking for and is withholding it, or simply doesn't have the information. That's a textbook definition of "ineffective".
- overcast 11y ago
  What's the alternative? I'm generally curious as to what would be considered more effective.
  - chishaku 11y ago
    The alternative is to operate within the law and international convention.
  - naasking 11y ago
    "We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess [1]. Also: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation [2] [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Why-Torture-Doesnt-Work-Interrogation/dp/0674743903 http://www.amazon.com/Why-Torture-Doesnt-Work-Interrogation/...
  - peejaybee 11y ago
    From the sound of it, "do nothing" would be no less effective, and a bit cheaper.
    - overcast 11y ago
      Have you quantified the times when it has been effective though?

CocaKoala 11y ago

If it takes you more than 83 separate instances of waterboarding somebody to decide that they don't have useful information to share with you, then waterboarding is not an efficient way to get reliable information. If waterboarding is not an efficient way to get reliable information, then I'd be very curious to hear about what definition of "work" you're using where waterboarding might satisfy, but fail in this particular instance.

overcast 11y ago
For all the times it didn't work, how many times did it work for others? One person, with no information, doesn't mean anything.
- chishaku 11y ago
  "Here are eight cases cited in the report where the C.I.A. made the case that its tactics thwarted plots and led to the capture of terrorists, and how the committee's report undercut those accounts." http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-torture-work-the-cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-tor... Full report: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/senate-intelligence-committee-study-on-cia-detention-and-interrogation-program http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/senate-inte... Torture is illegal under the Eight Amendment. The Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times. If we're going to go against legal precedent as well as international convention, the burden of proof for torture's effectiveness is on torture advocates. The evidence provided does not stand up to scrutiny.
- CocaKoala 11y ago
  Your question is poorly formed because the basis of my comment was asking how you defined "work" in the context of waterboarding. You didn't provide any sort of definition, you just said "Well, maybe it worked for other people". But if it doesn't work reliably, for whatever "work" means, then it doesn't matter if it's successful sometimes and unsuccessful other times because if you don't have a way to distinguish the success from the failure, it's impossible to measure. That's why I asked you to clarify what you mean when you say it might "work".
- anentropic 11y ago
  well, either it means they were just gratuitously torturing him for fun, or it means they can't tell whether they were getting any useful information or if he had any to give neither option suggests the technique is useful it's also about as immoral as you can get

naasking 11y ago

> Right, but the point of the article is that they were doing it to the wrong person. That doesn't mean it does not work. Causation does not imply correlation. I think this case make it obvious that it's impossible to tell if the person you're torturing has the information you're looking for and is withholding it, or simply doesn't have the information. That's a textbook definition of "ineffective".

overcast 11y ago
What's the alternative? I'm generally curious as to what would be considered more effective.
- chishaku 11y ago
  The alternative is to operate within the law and international convention.
- naasking 11y ago
  "We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess [1]. Also: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation [2] [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Why-Torture-Doesnt-Work-Interrogation/dp/0674743903 http://www.amazon.com/Why-Torture-Doesnt-Work-Interrogation/...
- peejaybee 11y ago
  From the sound of it, "do nothing" would be no less effective, and a bit cheaper.
  - overcast 11y ago
    Have you quantified the times when it has been effective though?