4 ms·

> Maybe this makes me a bad person, but I'd ask how effective torture would be. Effective at getting information? Probably. As torture is primarily used for in

> Maybe this makes me a bad person, but I'd ask how effective torture would be. Effective at getting information? Probably. As torture is primarily used for interrogation, torturers would stop torturing if it didn't work. But I guess it's a bit like bombing a village where you have seen Talibans two hours ago. Sometimes you will kill the Talibans. Sometimes you will kill Talibans and civilians. Many times, you'll just kill civilians. For instance, during the Algerian Independence War, French intelligence intoxicated the FLN by making them believe they had been infiltrated (operation KJ-27, January 1958). The FLN commander in the sector tortured the suspects, which promptly gave names of people they knew, which in turn got tortured, and so on. This resulted in the elimination of (at least) hundreds of combatants, most of whom were actually loyal to the FLN.

pitt1980 13y ago
"torturers would stop torturing if it didn't work" I don't know if that follows that argument can be used to defend the logic of any illogical act specifically with torture, there are cultural pressures to "do everything possible" that override considerabtions on whether it actually works
- mercurial 13y ago
  > that argument can be used to defend the logic of any illogical act You can find historical examples of torture working for the goal of acquiring information. For instance, the battle of Algiers is well-documented. Any asymmetrical conflict has involved torture. Obviously, any perceived benefit on the ground is counterbalanced by the loss of moral high ground, worsened perception by the local population and occasionally, international condemnation.
flyinRyan 13y ago
The original purpose of torture was to get people to admit to things the government needed them to admit to. For example, the Templars were taken down by the king of France by torturing them until they "admitted" committing heresy. That allowed him to execute them, and avoid paying the huge sum of money they were owed. Getting information, I'd say not very effective. The issue is, what if the person really doesn't know? How do you tell the difference? You listed some examples, but how did you confirm that this information was true and not just bullshit these people were saying to make the torture stop? In the end, weren't the "loyalists" just killed anyway? Maybe they weren't actually loyal so they were simply killed and logged as loyalists. Since the main "evidence" is testimony under extreme duress there's no way to know for sure.
- mercurial 13y ago
  That's the point. Torture can cause collateral damage. These people were not guilty of what they were accused of. But at the same time, you can find out a number of examples of torture giving results.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    But again, for all the examples you can name of "giving results" how many can you prove gave accurate results? And if you can prove the torture produced accurate results that means you have a reliable outside verification mechanism, at which point the question becomes: why didn't you just use that mechanism instead of torture?
    - mercurial 13y ago
      Following the arrest, torture (often followed by extra-judicial executions) of numerous FLN members in Algiers and civilian collaborators, the FLN organization in the area was destroyed, and its bombing campaign ended.

pitt1980 13y ago

"torturers would stop torturing if it didn't work" I don't know if that follows that argument can be used to defend the logic of any illogical act specifically with torture, there are cultural pressures to "do everything possible" that override considerabtions on whether it actually works

mercurial 13y ago
> that argument can be used to defend the logic of any illogical act You can find historical examples of torture working for the goal of acquiring information. For instance, the battle of Algiers is well-documented. Any asymmetrical conflict has involved torture. Obviously, any perceived benefit on the ground is counterbalanced by the loss of moral high ground, worsened perception by the local population and occasionally, international condemnation.

flyinRyan 13y ago

The original purpose of torture was to get people to admit to things the government needed them to admit to. For example, the Templars were taken down by the king of France by torturing them until they "admitted" committing heresy. That allowed him to execute them, and avoid paying the huge sum of money they were owed. Getting information, I'd say not very effective. The issue is, what if the person really doesn't know? How do you tell the difference? You listed some examples, but how did you confirm that this information was true and not just bullshit these people were saying to make the torture stop? In the end, weren't the "loyalists" just killed anyway? Maybe they weren't actually loyal so they were simply killed and logged as loyalists. Since the main "evidence" is testimony under extreme duress there's no way to know for sure.

mercurial 13y ago
That's the point. Torture can cause collateral damage. These people were not guilty of what they were accused of. But at the same time, you can find out a number of examples of torture giving results.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  But again, for all the examples you can name of "giving results" how many can you prove gave accurate results? And if you can prove the torture produced accurate results that means you have a reliable outside verification mechanism, at which point the question becomes: why didn't you just use that mechanism instead of torture?
  - mercurial 13y ago
    Following the arrest, torture (often followed by extra-judicial executions) of numerous FLN members in Algiers and civilian collaborators, the FLN organization in the area was destroyed, and its bombing campaign ended.