4 ms·

So here's what I don't get. If we think that torturing people may be an effective way of obtaining information, then why don't we try it under controlled condit

by ansible 10y ago

So here's what I don't get. If we think that torturing people may be an effective way of obtaining information, then why don't we try it under controlled conditions? We train a dozen of our agents in the normal fashion, and give them seemingly important secrets. Send them off to a foreign country to carry out a mission. Then stage a kidnapping with people that appear to be working for an enemy (IS, whoever). Then actually torture the agents. For real. We know what information they have, so we can see what information they'll actually give up. Then we can see which techniques are most efficient and effective. If they give up the name of the fellow operative, "capture" that operative, and show the agent the consequences. That is science. What? You say you have ethical concerns? How could we possibly do this to our own people? What's the difference? We have willingly sacrificed the health and lives of tens of thousands of our own citizens already during the War on Terror. What's another couple dozen? If the government isn't willing to torture our own people, and publish the results... then maybe the government shouldn't be torturing anyone at all.

ljf 10y ago
Similar to: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-deterrence/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-deter... On the 'nuclear codes' to launch an attack: My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home. When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, “My God, that’s terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.“
- kstenerud 10y ago
  Sorry, but if I were dealing with a nuclear launch scenario, one innocent life would not sway me at all.
  - ljf 10y ago
    You sound like President material then ;)
lsd5you 10y ago
Without want to exonerate anyone, incidental loss of life is almost unavoidable for governments making big decisions with all their limitations, internal deficiencies and bad actors. I believe you are trying to hold their feet to fire and construct a normative argument. However you did preface your argument with 'I don't get'. Something I personally 'don't get' is why people such as yourself find it so hard to understand how so many people are prepared to be 'nasty' on issues like this. Without putting to fine a point on it, it is because they don't care about the consequences to certain others (here a small number of very alien, mostly militant people) and they don't feel sufficiently threatened or even do feel emboldened by any potential retaliation . We may not like it, but The first part about effectiveness is a strawman. Since clearly in some situations it is possible to test truthfulness (by asking questions with answers you know, but they don't know you know), or get easily testable testimony (i.e. x is here), or simply get known information corroborated (which is of some value). It is simply very difficult to argue something should never be done given all the possible scenarios. Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that as a matter of policy governments shouldn't do something since they cannot be trusted and because there is clearly a slippery slope and concern about government overreach against its own citizens (then for an agent to break that policy they would themselves be facing consequences so would have to be pretty damn sure it was a good idea). Also you fail to understand the moral disposition of people who might support torture - conservatives. They are not simple consequentalists and certainly not utilitarians. They generally consider it utterly wrong to torture or directly injure people on their side. Conservatives have a strong sense of group loyalty. I would argue it is all very well to suspend group loyalty (or confine it to sports matches) if you can have it reciprocated from other groups, but when it clearly isn't taking the high road leaves you at a loss (albeit with a moral gain). Likewise to conservatives having a robust response to something is not a moral bad as such. Getting in the way of the (US) state can be likened to driving right to the edge of a cliff - it is your fault if you fall off, not the state's from being unyielding. Although the state could be soft on people after the fact, that would violate robustness. Instead it would prefer to push back the responsibility for any outcomes on to the individuals who have (presumably) clearly taken risks of getting caught up in this battle and then doubled down by refusing to give up information.
- ansible 10y ago
hx87 10y ago
Or, allow government officials to publicly and openly order the use of torture, with one caveat: anything done to the tortured will be done to the official. Too high a price to pay, you say? Then the situation is not dire enough to warrant torture.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
  Actually not a bad idea. Given that a journalist voluntarily underwent water boarding (Hitchens [0]) I have no doubt that in a real life ticking bomb scenario there would at least be one person willing to undergo water boarding in order to do it to the suspect terrorist. It would also prevent the sliding slope into the real nasty stuff as it is less likely someone would be willing to undergo the torture that permanently maim you. 0. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808
Aelinsaar 10y ago
I'd read 'Torture and Democracy' which basically answers all of your questions, and then offers a hundred pages of bibliography for further study.
jbattle 10y ago
But what if it turns out that torture really is effective? I think it is wrong and should be banned on that basis - but I am very open to the idea that properly used it might be a really valid way of collecting imperfect but useful information. I think the anti-torture side (shameful that such a concept is necessary!!) needs to be careful of putting too many of our eggs in the 'ban-torture-cause-its-ineffective' basket.
- chme 10y ago
  If results would validate methods the simplest solution to avoid any more human violence/deaths and misery would be to kill all humans.

by ansible 10y ago

ljf 10y ago

Similar to: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-deterrence/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-deter... On the 'nuclear codes' to launch an attack: My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home. When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, “My God, that’s terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.“

kstenerud 10y ago
Sorry, but if I were dealing with a nuclear launch scenario, one innocent life would not sway me at all.
- ljf 10y ago
  You sound like President material then ;)

lsd5you 10y ago

Without want to exonerate anyone, incidental loss of life is almost unavoidable for governments making big decisions with all their limitations, internal deficiencies and bad actors. I believe you are trying to hold their feet to fire and construct a normative argument. However you did preface your argument with 'I don't get'. Something I personally 'don't get' is why people such as yourself find it so hard to understand how so many people are prepared to be 'nasty' on issues like this. Without putting to fine a point on it, it is because they don't care about the consequences to certain others (here a small number of very alien, mostly militant people) and they don't feel sufficiently threatened or even do feel emboldened by any potential retaliation . We may not like it, but The first part about effectiveness is a strawman. Since clearly in some situations it is possible to test truthfulness (by asking questions with answers you know, but they don't know you know), or get easily testable testimony (i.e. x is here), or simply get known information corroborated (which is of some value). It is simply very difficult to argue something should never be done given all the possible scenarios. Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that as a matter of policy governments shouldn't do something since they cannot be trusted and because there is clearly a slippery slope and concern about government overreach against its own citizens (then for an agent to break that policy they would themselves be facing consequences so would have to be pretty damn sure it was a good idea). Also you fail to understand the moral disposition of people who might support torture - conservatives. They are not simple consequentalists and certainly not utilitarians. They generally consider it utterly wrong to torture or directly injure people on their side. Conservatives have a strong sense of group loyalty. I would argue it is all very well to suspend group loyalty (or confine it to sports matches) if you can have it reciprocated from other groups, but when it clearly isn't taking the high road leaves you at a loss (albeit with a moral gain). Likewise to conservatives having a robust response to something is not a moral bad as such. Getting in the way of the (US) state can be likened to driving right to the edge of a cliff - it is your fault if you fall off, not the state's from being unyielding. Although the state could be soft on people after the fact, that would violate robustness. Instead it would prefer to push back the responsibility for any outcomes on to the individuals who have (presumably) clearly taken risks of getting caught up in this battle and then doubled down by refusing to give up information.

ansible 10y ago

hx87 10y ago

Or, allow government officials to publicly and openly order the use of torture, with one caveat: anything done to the tortured will be done to the official. Too high a price to pay, you say? Then the situation is not dire enough to warrant torture.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
Actually not a bad idea. Given that a journalist voluntarily underwent water boarding (Hitchens [0]) I have no doubt that in a real life ticking bomb scenario there would at least be one person willing to undergo water boarding in order to do it to the suspect terrorist. It would also prevent the sliding slope into the real nasty stuff as it is less likely someone would be willing to undergo the torture that permanently maim you. 0. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808

Aelinsaar 10y ago

I'd read 'Torture and Democracy' which basically answers all of your questions, and then offers a hundred pages of bibliography for further study.

jbattle 10y ago

But what if it turns out that torture really is effective? I think it is wrong and should be banned on that basis - but I am very open to the idea that properly used it might be a really valid way of collecting imperfect but useful information. I think the anti-torture side (shameful that such a concept is necessary!!) needs to be careful of putting too many of our eggs in the 'ban-torture-cause-its-ineffective' basket.

chme 10y ago
If results would validate methods the simplest solution to avoid any more human violence/deaths and misery would be to kill all humans.