3 ms·

I keep hearing that torture doesn't provide reliable information. And then i read that an organization that specializes in obtaining information uses torture ex

I keep hearing that torture doesn't provide reliable information. And then i read that an organization that specializes in obtaining information uses torture extensively. Either nobody holds them accountable for when their dodgy intel doesn't check out or i have been misled and torture does in fact yield good results. Which one is it?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
This assumes their goal is to get actual intel and not just politically actionable intel. Torture is a great way to make someone say whatever you want them to.
- dTal 5y ago
  Why go through the whole dog and pony show of actually torturing them? Just claim they said what you want in the torture chamber. It amounts to exactly the same thing and nobody will contradict you. Honestly, I just think they like doing it.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Though I don't disagree that much of it is just sadism, there is also some need for a paper trail. The "informant" denying they ever said anything causes more problems than them recanting what they said while tortured.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Institutions like people have beliefs and positions irrespective of these positions relationship with reality. For example the FBI which would would reasonably expect to be experts in scientific analysis spent decades sending experts to testify as to the nature of matching hair that was left at crime scenes with real live suspects. Turns out that upon review 95% of the cases in which they gave testimony were flawed and they notably couldn't reliably tell dog hair from human hair let alone identify suspects. Just think of it people got 4 year degrees in a scientific field and built entire decades long career pretending to do something effectively not only to others but to themselves and their superiors. They testified in court dressed up in fancy suits with fancy titles when they were less effective at doing their job than a magic 8 ball. It would be like finding out your doctor wasn't exactly clear on the difference between a liver and a kidney and him and all his colleagues were just kind of faking it and hoping you wouldn't notice. The only saving grace that made them look sort of effective was the fact that they quite frequently but not always had ample evidence against the suspect meaning they were far more than average sending them hair samples of people who were in fact already known to be the real killer so they could in theory appear somewhat accurate by for example always saying yes if the hair was the same color which is you know fantastic for black people. Why would we expect a field of endeavor that is entirely isolated from any accountability to be good at anything?

boomboomsubban 5y ago

This assumes their goal is to get actual intel and not just politically actionable intel. Torture is a great way to make someone say whatever you want them to.

dTal 5y ago
Why go through the whole dog and pony show of actually torturing them? Just claim they said what you want in the torture chamber. It amounts to exactly the same thing and nobody will contradict you. Honestly, I just think they like doing it.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Though I don't disagree that much of it is just sadism, there is also some need for a paper trail. The "informant" denying they ever said anything causes more problems than them recanting what they said while tortured.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Institutions like people have beliefs and positions irrespective of these positions relationship with reality. For example the FBI which would would reasonably expect to be experts in scientific analysis spent decades sending experts to testify as to the nature of matching hair that was left at crime scenes with real live suspects. Turns out that upon review 95% of the cases in which they gave testimony were flawed and they notably couldn't reliably tell dog hair from human hair let alone identify suspects. Just think of it people got 4 year degrees in a scientific field and built entire decades long career pretending to do something effectively not only to others but to themselves and their superiors. They testified in court dressed up in fancy suits with fancy titles when they were less effective at doing their job than a magic 8 ball. It would be like finding out your doctor wasn't exactly clear on the difference between a liver and a kidney and him and all his colleagues were just kind of faking it and hoping you wouldn't notice. The only saving grace that made them look sort of effective was the fact that they quite frequently but not always had ample evidence against the suspect meaning they were far more than average sending them hair samples of people who were in fact already known to be the real killer so they could in theory appear somewhat accurate by for example always saying yes if the hair was the same color which is you know fantastic for black people. Why would we expect a field of endeavor that is entirely isolated from any accountability to be good at anything?