Torture Has a Long History ... of Not Working

[SLCPUNK]

Heather Whipps
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com Fri Oct 19, 1:20 PM ET

From the dingy dungeons of the Dark Ages to today's shadowy holding facilities, the use of torture as an interrogation tactic has evolved little and possibly yielded even less, in terms of intelligence.

Inflicting pain to get information is a practice with deep roots as well as modern relevance, in light of the recent statements by President George W. Bush claiming the U.S. government does not use torture on political prisoners, despite some evidence to the contrary.

But aside from the moral and legal implications, does torture ever produce reliable intelligence?

"That's the impossible question," said Darius Rejali, a political scientist at Reed College in Oregon.

As a rule, torture is not an effective method of extracting information from prisoners, most experts agree.

"If anything useful came out these interrogations in Iraq, we would have heard about it," said Alfred McCoy, a University of Wisconsin-Madison historian and author of "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror" (Holt Paperbacks, 2006).

A history of violence

The question of torture has become more controversial of late due to a report in The New York Times on memos issued by the U.S. Justice Department in 2005, effectively authorizing intelligence agencies to use interrogation methods defined as torture under international law.

Psychological techniques such as the water-boarding and sleep deprivation that American operatives are suspected of using recently have a history going back to behavior experiments from the 1950s, McCoy said.

"They were looking for a key to unlock the mind," McCoy said of the CIA-funded research, "and the real breakthrough was that sensory deprivation could produce a mental disorientation akin to psychosis."

A switch from more physical methods of torture to the psychological approaches emerged in the following decades in places such as Vietnam, Central America and Iran, McCoy said, without any definitive proof of their effectiveness. When the "War on Terror" was initiated after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the CIA had another training ground for this kind of interrogation at its Guantanamo Bay detention center.

"Guantanamo Bay turned into a de-facto behavioral science laboratory," McCoy told LiveScience, where sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain?allowing a detainee who had stood for hours to sit if he would only "cooperate"?regularly took place.

Though captives are less resentful when tortured psychologically, it doesn't make their statements any more trustworthy, Rejali said.

"Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true," Rejali wrote in a 2004 article on Salon.com.

Torture 'light' still unreliable

There's no such thing as "a little bit of torture," McCoy said of the "light" tactics that are preferred today. Detainees are just as likely to tell their interrogators whatever they want to hear under psychological distress as they are under physical distress, he said, a statement backed up by Sen. John McCain, who himself was tortured as an officer during the Vietnam War.

Democracies, rather than dictatorships or oppressive regimes, are more likely to engage in this seemingly stealthy kind of torture because it is easier to hide from journalists and citizens, Rejali said.

"Torture is a sign that a government either does not enjoy the trust of the people it governs or cannot recruit informers for a surveillance system. In both cases, torture to obtain information is a sign of institutional decay and desperation," wrote Rejali, "and torture accelerates this process, destroying the bonds of loyalty, respect and trust that keep information flowing. As any remaining sources of intelligence dry up, governments have to torture even more."

Psychological torture has persisted in theaters such as the Iraq War not because it necessarily works, but because the CIA has such an institutional history of the practice, McCoy said.

"The interrogators themselves tend to believe in its efficacy, and no matter what you do, you can't stop them once they start," he said, noting that the false sense of power one gets from inflicting torture only fuels more advanced brutality.

Medieval torture more organized

The Medieval or Dark Ages are widely held up as the standard-bearer in brutal and organized torture. Famous dreaded devices such as the rack, the spiked Iron Maiden coffin and a very unpleasant, pyramid-shaped seat called the Judas Cradle were used to coerce victims into providing some desired information, often a false confession.

Despite the seemingly barbaric nature of Medieval torture, however, the methods used were actually part of an organized system of justice, as opposed to the clandestine nature of the interrogations allegedly being conducted by the CIA, Rejali said.

Medieval torture was neither sadistic nor savage compared to modern torture and was no more or less rational or driven by urgent security concerns, Rejali said.

"The only reason the question [of urgency] appears more interesting for us is because morally those are the only ways democratic societies are able to justify it to themselves," he said, adding that "the search for heretics was always a serious one, just as the search for terrorists is today."

[fuckin crazy]

Hopefully a future Congress and President will get the balls to investigate the criminals who advocate, authorise, and use brutal means of coercion to achieve their nefarious means.

[Perfect Criminal]

"If anything useful came out these interrogations in Iraq, we would have heard about it," said Alfred McCoy, a University of Wisconsin-Madison historian and author of "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror" (Holt Paperbacks, 2006).

No we wouldn't.  The US would never admit publicly to torturing anyone.  This is just a dumb statement.  If they torture someone and get info do you think they would admit it?

And that's why the article is incomplete.  Let's see the studies.  How the held do you even do a study on a topic with so little evidence.  Certainly they didn't allow tortune of terrorists to take place in order to carry out the study. And certainly there is not much written evidence pointing to the use of torture and the results that were generated (no one would put that stuff on paper).

There is no way to know for sure if torture works and to what degree. 

[SLCPUNK]

If they torture someone and get info do you think they would admit it?

Not only would they admit it, they would promote it as a means to further condone the action.

There is no way to know for sure if torture works and to what degree. 

For you perhaps, but there are studies that say otherwise, mostly from Military interrogation experts.

[Izzy]

who cares if it works?

Torture is fundamentally wrong - its effectiveness is irrelevant

Surely no one is trying to suggest that if it was proven to be effective it would be appropriate to use it?

[freedom78]

"If anything useful came out these interrogations in Iraq, we would have heard about it," said Alfred McCoy, a University of Wisconsin-Madison historian and author of "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror" (Holt Paperbacks, 2006).

No we wouldn't.  The US would never admit publicly to torturing anyone.  This is just a dumb statement.  If they torture someone and get info do you think they would admit it?

And that's why the article is incomplete.  Let's see the studies.  How the held do you even do a study on a topic with so little evidence.  Certainly they didn't allow tortune of terrorists to take place in order to carry out the study. And certainly there is not much written evidence pointing to the use of torture and the results that were generated (no one would put that stuff on paper).

There is no way to know for sure if torture works and to what degree. 

I tend to agree.  Who are these experts, and how did they become experts?  Have they tortured or observed torture?  If so, why aren't they in prison?  And as much as I respect McCain, one man's experience doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.  I don't support torture, but people throw out this "Torture doesn't work" argument, cite "studies," and never actually show any evidence.   

who cares if it works?

Torture is fundamentally wrong - its effectiveness is irrelevant

These arguments, though, are aimed at those who believe that doing bad things to bad people may be ok, if it achieves results.  Those who believe it shouldn't be done, due to ethical reasons, don't need convincing.

Surely no one is trying to suggest that if it was proven to be effective it would be appropriate to use it?

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.  If that were the case, then we (as a society) wouldn't be having this discussion.  But part of that discussion needs to be defining where, exactly, the line lies in terms of what is or is not torture.  The Geneva Conventions are fairly vague, and outdated, and need to be revisited as soon as possible to close loopholes such as designating prisoners as "unlawful combatants." 

On another note, I do love that the author of a torture article is named "Whipps."   

 

[sandman]

who cares if it works?

Torture is fundamentally wrong - its effectiveness is irrelevant

Surely no one is trying to suggest that if it was proven to be effective it would be appropriate to use it?

count me in as someone that would suggest that.

[Perfect Criminal]

I'd use torture if it saved innocent lives.  And who makes up these rules about what's right and wrong?  The geneva convention?  Please.

If torturing 10 would-be terrorists unveils a plot that would kills thousands of innocent people, it's worth it all day long (again, as long as it isn't made public).  How can anyone not see the logic?  The problem is that the same people that wouldn't torture one person to save thousands are the ones that want to leave Iraq (where the death toll would rise exponentially).

It's about protecting good innocent people...it's not about protecting terrorists. 

[Izzy]

who cares if it works?

Torture is fundamentally wrong - its effectiveness is irrelevant

Surely no one is trying to suggest that if it was proven to be effective it would be appropriate to use it?

count me in as someone that would suggest that.

but we already know your political views would have made Hitler blush

[sandman]

who cares if it works?

Torture is fundamentally wrong - its effectiveness is irrelevant

Surely no one is trying to suggest that if it was proven to be effective it would be appropriate to use it?

count me in as someone that would suggest that.

but we already know your political views would have made Hitler blush

you don't know shit about my views. you asked a question and i answered it. you don't like the answer so you criticize and make assinine comments. so typical.

and guess what? alot of people agree with me, including many liberals.

[Genesis]

If torturing 10 would-be terrorists unveils a plot that would kills thousands of innocent people, it's worth it all day long (again, as long as it isn't made public). 

Who decides who a would-be terrorist is? You?

[Dead N' Bloated]

I dont have anything against the death penalty but I wish there was a torture penalty instead. I think it has more justice than just killin a rapist ir murderer.


 

[SLCPUNK]

I'd use torture if it saved innocent lives.  And who makes up these rules about what's right and wrong?  The geneva convention?  Please.

Uh yea, actually, law. 

Call me crazy, I know.

and guess what? alot of people agree with me, including many liberals.

Where they at?

[fuckin crazy]

I dont have anything against the death penalty but I wish there was a torture penalty instead. I think it has more justice than just killin a rapist ir murderer.


 

If you are an american:


THE BILL OF RIGHTS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:



Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There is no way to know for sure if torture works and to what degree.

There are tens of thousands of torture victims that can testify to it's efficacy. In my opinion, it is a most despicable and repugnant person who advocates the use of this brutality.

Someone asked, "what if torturing 10 people saves thousnds of lives?"; I ask, what if torturing groups of people, thousands of times, saves 1 life, or props up a government? is it worth it?
 
 

[Dead N' Bloated]

I dont have anything against the death penalty but I wish there was a torture penalty instead. I think it has more justice than just killin a rapist ir murderer.


 

If you are an american:


THE BILL OF RIGHTS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:



Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There is no way to know for sure if torture works and to what degree.

There are tens of thousands of torture vicrims that can testify to it's efficacy. In my opinion, it is a most despicable and repugnant person who advocates the use of this brutality.

Some asked, "what if torturing 10 people saves thousnds of lives?"; I ask, what if torturing groups of people, thousands of times, saves 1 life, or props up a government? is it worth it?
 
 

I'm Australian and we have not had the death penalty in like 30 years or something. I wish we did because we have so many fuckwits that need shootin. But i think sex offenders need to be in alot of fucking pain and not just killed. Not just sex offenders but other bad cunts too. But i think killing someone is not as bad as raping them


 

[SLCPUNK]

"Need a shootin", sure you ain't from the south?

 

[fuckin crazy]

I'm Australian and we have not had the death penalty in like 30 years or something. I wish we did because we have so many fuckwits that need shootin. But i think sex offenders need to be in alot of fucking pain and not just killed. Not just sex offenders but other bad cunts too. But i think killing someone is not as bad as raping them


 

State sponsored murder is something entirely different than someone killing another. I almost agree with you on the sexual predator thing. I don't know if I would condone the State killing them, but I feel that they have forfitted they're right to be in society.

[Dead N' Bloated]

I'm Australian and we have not had the death penalty in like 30 years or something. I wish we did because we have so many fuckwits that need shootin. But i think sex offenders need to be in alot of fucking pain and not just killed. Not just sex offenders but other bad cunts too. But i think killing someone is not as bad as raping them


 

State sponsored murder is something entirely different than someone killing another. I almost agree with you on the sexual predator thing. I don't know if I would condone the State killing them, but I feel that they have forfitted they're right to be in society.

I dont know what its like where your from but in Australia, crims have alot of rights. You see, I thought when you broke the law a went to jail, your rights were taken away from you but last year in Queensland, an inmate sued the queensland government because he could not get Halal meals (not sure of the spelling if thats wrong) in prison. How fucked is that? Its a srep up from bread and water


 

[sandman]

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable"

[GeraldFord]

Ethical and moral reasons aside, it's not a good idea to torture people because under duress, people will say anything. And if the US tortures people, what kind of message does that send to the World? Do we want other countries torturing US soldiers and civilians? They can just look at the US and say "well they torture people, why can't we?"

alot of people agree with me, including many liberals.

A lot of liberals condone torture?