Torture-- Let's Get Real

[Del Arroyo]

Alright, let me ask-- what the hell is the matter with torture? Are we not at War? What is this nonsense about being Humane? Personally, I don't think that KILLING people is very humane. And don't even try any hogwash about quick, clean kills-- what if you get your leg blown off and bleed to death? Or shot in the neck and slowly choke to death? And what if you are forced to watch one of your best buddies slowly suffer and die from such an injury? Would that not be psychological torture as well?

It is horrible that people must die such deaths and undergo such torment, but such is the price they pay for acting as combatants on a hot battlefield. Or perhaps simply for being an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time-- no one said that war was fair. What I do not understand is in what way Torture is morally distinct-- it is also horrible that people must undergo such torment and humiliation, but such is the price to pay for associating with terrorists and being a carrier of militarily useful information. Or perhaps simply for being an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time-- no one said that war was fair.

I will grant that in many cases there may be a straight-forward "hearts and minds" practicality to prohibiting torture, but that is a practical and not a moral objection. Can anyone explain to me why, morally, torture should be forbidden in our war in Iraq (I could say War on Terror, but that term really doesn't apply to our current situation). Or is it a purely Practical concern? Basically, why all the hubbub?

I'm interested to hear people's opinions, but I suspect that much of the outcry over "torture" may be due simply to delusional squeamishness.

DA

[English assassin]

Morally: because we are supposed to be the side that DOESN'T regard the deliberate infliction of pain on a powerless person as a legitimate means to an end.

Practically: because the information you obtain is worthless.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The burden of proof and explanation lies in the hands of the torturers, not in the hands of those against it.

"In war innocent people suffer", indeed. You might want to think about that before you start a war. You've killed, hurt and tortured more than ten times the amount terrorists kill in 20 years. Are those people less worth than Americans? Why this racism, fascism and immorality? What makes you think the children of today's Americans and Europeans won't suffer from these cruel barbaric acts, when finally - it must inevitably happen sometime in the future - todays victims get stronger in power than today's war criminals. Do you really want your children to suffer from the consequences of such actions? It would be cowardice to refuse to do the right thing of fear of what might happen to yourself or your children, but in this case it's immoral acts which will hurt yourselves and your children. Only an irrational, general without discipline and long term strategy would support such actions. Only by constantly destroying every attempt of the enemies, and the innocents who belong to the same people, to build up their strength and hope of a better future, can such a strategy work. Is there anything that can make people lose their meaning of life as much as constant sabotage of that kind? Is there anything that can make people, previously friends of America and Europe, enemies of these two?

Also, this torture is not helping anyone. Perhaps in the very short term it's a source of information. But being a good guy and getting support from locals is a more effective way of gaining information. People deliberately seeking for US officials to give them information is much more effective than taking in people and torturing them, often even innocents. Loyalty, popularity and free will informers is better. What you are doing with torture is both and immoral act, and an act that hurts the American people, and the struggle against terrorism in the world.

Lenin once said: "it's better to kill 100 innocent than letting 1 guilty escape". Is that principle of the Soviet communist dictatorship something the USA wishes to adopt by starting wars where innocents get killed? Let me quote a certain Bible passage (from Genesis), which I'm very fond of:

And Abraham came near, and said, Will you let destruction come on the upright with the sinners?
18:24 If by chance there are fifty upright men in the town, will you give the place to destruction and not have mercy on it because of the fifty upright men?
18:25 Let such a thing be far from you, to put the upright to death with the sinner: will not the judge of all the earth do right?
18:26 And the Lord said, If there are fifty upright men in the town, I will have mercy on it because of them.
18:27 And Abraham answering said, Truly, I who am only dust, have undertaken to put my thoughts before the Lord:
18:28 If by chance there are five less than fifty upright men, will you give up all the town to destruction because of these five? And he said, I will not give it to destruction if there are forty-five.
18:29 And again he said to him, By chance there may be forty there. And he said, I will not do it if there are forty.
18:30 And he said, Let not the Lord be angry with me if I say, What if there are thirty there? And he said, I will not do it if there are thirty.
18:31 And he said, See now, I have undertaken to put my thoughts before the Lord: what if there are twenty there? And he said, I will have mercy because of the twenty.
18:32 And he said, O let not the Lord be angry and I will say only one word more: by chance there may be ten there. And he said, I will have mercy because of the ten.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder why those who support torture do support it. For the information it gives? Then I'd like to discuss whether that really is such a good method of acquiring information. Whether it's moral or not is, in the end, not interesting for the leaders, who want to achieve results. I'll therefore not post anything more in this thread about my moral view on the subject, which is merely a matter of personal opinion. But I'm open for discussing the efficiency of this torture as a weapon in a war like the Iraq war. As mentioned, I find it very hard to believe it has any positive effect in terms of information acqurining, and no positive effect as scare tactics/setting examples (as it also strikes innocents - making examples lose all it's scare effect and replaces it by disgust among the public when innocents are by mistake struck by it).

[master of the puppets]

a fine and plausible quote for anyone even non christians as it depitcts that innocence is far rarer and to be coveted much more than the ability to kill a guilty.

you must remember that you are an american, you and you forefathers lived by a constitution that was different from all the rest and revolutionary in its design (or at least it was) and in that it states that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishments. i believe that this makes us the moral superiors, we as americans practicew civility, mercy to even those who do not deserve it. if we were to go lower than that, to throw such time honored distinctions to the dirt we become no better than them, we become the savage animals we despise. i see it better to keep being the best, to be higher than those we fight, cause we are americans.

...but i was born to late cause america has already corrupted itself...damnit.

[Idaho]

In the words of the great Jon Luc Picard:

It is a wonder that [torture] is still practiced at all. As a means of gathering information it is at best unreliable. And as a means of controlling someone it is ultimately self defeating.

[Del Arroyo]

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix-- You are wrong on many counts.

First of all, since when has it been reasonable to consider the frequency and severity of American torture even remotely comparable to that which our enemies and indeed many non-Western governments, friendly and hostile, have used and still use around the world?

Second of all, it is undisputed statistical fact that the greater bulk of innocent casualties in Iraq have resulted from insurgent car bombs, suicide bombs, executions and reprisals.

Third of all, it is a serious logical error to place the full blame for the horror of the Iraq war onto the shoulders of the US. True, it would not have begun had we not invaded-- but its dogged continuation and its peculiarly gruesome nature cannot be blamed solely or even principally on the presence of US forces, but rather on the determined acts of terrorist and insurgent elements who most often have very little regard for the ultimate good of the Iraqi people and certainly have no interest in a reasonable peace. If you take that alongside the fact that Iraq was, although better than now, certainly not a wonderful place before the invasion, you may start to see the shades of gray which so delightfully color the world view of a reasonable thinking man.

Fourth of all, what is this crap about how we should be fearful of things to come? I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic and incorrect facts-- if the US is doing so many horrible things now, and that was without provocation, then what is there to make us believe that the motive for such cruelty would be revenge (or "justice"), rather than simple ability?

If you straighten your facts and your thinking out a little, you might come up with a better understanding of the situation.

..

And still no one has really adressed the question I was driving at. I am interested, though, in this notion that torture leads to bad or poor information-- can someone elaborate on that?

DA

[Slyspy]

Oh the different levels of torture? The nice kind and the bad kind? Pah!

[Xiahou]

Practically: because the information you obtain is worthless.

Ignoring any morality, that's flat out wrong. When used intelligently and with other sources it can be highly valuable and reliable. Even recently, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was said to have spilled his guts with less than 3 minutes of waterboarding.

I'm interested to hear people's opinions, but I suspect that much of the outcry over "torture" may be due simply to delusional squeamishness.

Here's the thing... in reality, torture is very narrowly defined and the vast majority of tactics under debate are not considered torture by those standards. The characterizaion of the debate as being about "torture" has been something of a red herring, imo. What the debate's really been about uncomfortable and humiliating coercion, not torture. I don't think any here would advocate or support hooking car batteries to genitals or chopping off fingers. This is more about making people stay in cold rooms or forcing them to stand in uncomfortable positions, or sleep deprivation, or *gasp* female interrogators. The worst that's been talked about is waterboarding- which is no doubt terrifying, but when you come down to it, it causes no physical harm.

Personally, I think "routine" use of these things on people who have little or no operational knowledge is totally uneccessary. However, in cases such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or Zarqawi- when they have great operational knowledge- I'd like to think our intelligence guys were able to do more than say "please" while handing him a hot cup of tea.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Del Arroyo: It's been a long time since I last saw, or heard, a series of propaganda statements as much like taking directly out of a rhetorics book as your post above. With all due respect, pretending I said things I didn't, without proof or arguments calling my facts wrong and writing it in a way as if it was common knowledge they were wrong, as in:

I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic and incorrect facts-- if the US is doing so many horrible things now, and that was without provocation, then what is there to make us believe that the motive for such cruelty would be revenge (or "justice"), rather than simple ability?"

where you're claiming the terrorists haven't been provoked in any way before, which is an incorrect statement. You know just as well as I do about the American broken promises about air support for shia and curdic rebellions against Saddam, and the weapons trade aimed at balancing Iran and Iraq equally in the Iran-Iraq war so that as many as possible would die on both sides. We also have a suspicious amount of oil leaving Iraq, and finally the prisoners who have without trial been put in the concentration camp Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The following quotation is a typical attempt to change subject:

First of all, since when has it been reasonable to consider the frequency and severity of American torture even remotely comparable to that which our enemies and indeed many non-Western governments, friendly and hostile, have used and still use around the world?

The "I can steal cookies because he did" argument isn't valid in this case. The actual torture isn't in any way preventing these other governments, who use torture more, from carrying out their torture. The USA can choose to torture or not to torture, and choosing not to will both be morally correct and most benefitial for the American people, and the struggle against terrorism.

Another example of the annoying misquoting can be found in:

Third of all, it is a serious logical error to place the full blame for the horror of the Iraq war onto the shoulders of the US.

Again we're discussing Americas involvement. That's what the thread was apparently about - American torture, and the arguments for and against why Americans should use it or not. By claiming this immoral torture is inhumane and barbaric reveals nothing of one's view on who is to blame for this chaos and terror. One basic part of logic, which you apparently claim I know little about in this quote...

I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic

...is to not make conclusion just out of the blue, but based on information. You have no information on my view on who is to blame for the chaos and misery of these innocent people. Let me inform you, then, about my view on it. Europeans, Americans, and people of the Middle east have created this mess together. They could all, in several situations, have chosen better ways of acting, that would have resulted in a better situation today.

The lack of argumentation and any facts supporting your statements is also evident in the following passage:

but rather on the determined acts of terrorist and insurgent elements who most often have very little regard for the ultimate good of the Iraqi people and certainly have no interest in a reasonable peace.

This statement is the typical careless statement of ruling classes throughout history, to without further arguments calling any opposition "terrorism", "heresy", "insurgent elements" or "usurpers". As mentioned above, we have the US letting down the shias and curds by withdrawing air support and thereby luring them into a situation where Saddam carried out a gene gas massacre of them. We also have the Iran-Iraq war secret weapons trades aimed to maximize number of dead on both sides, and finally, of course, how the USA originally supported Saddam and made him able to become dictator of Iraq.

If you take that alongside the fact that Iraq was, although better than now, certainly not a wonderful place before the invasion, you may start to see the shades of gray which so delightfully color the world view of a reasonable thinking man.

The world community of intellectuals knew already before the invasion that this would be the result. Bush most likely also knew. The Iraq war is an affair of:
1. PR - making it look like active measures are taken against terrorism
2. oil
3. increasing western corporations influence in the Middle east
4. getting military bases and strengthen US control in the Middle east region

Fourth of all, what is this crap about how we should be fearful of things to come? I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic and incorrect facts-- if the US is doing so many horrible things now, and that was without provocation, then what is there to make us believe that the motive for such cruelty would be revenge (or "justice"), rather than simple ability?

See above, it isn't unprovoked. The US attack on Iraq, on the other hand, was unprovoked.

If you straighten your facts and your thinking out a little, you might come up with a better understanding of the situation.

It would be a lot easier if you at all gave some arguments for your opinion. It's quite difficult to understand where your "understanding" of the situation comes from, as it contradicts many commonly known historical facts, that I have demonstrated in this post.

And still no one has really adressed the question I was driving at. I am interested, though, in this notion that torture leads to bad or poor information-- can someone elaborate on that?

Perhaps you could also elaborate on why torture would result in better information than information through trust and popularity. Here's my motivation for why trust and popularity are so useful methods: simply because it would make locals (but not people like Zarqawi of course), want to provide useful information. It would of course also reduce the number of people available as recruiting material for terrorism. The result would be that the war would be a much quicker and easier business to win. He who can defeat his enemy without battle, is the greatest of all generals. The main enemy in this case is the group effect. No rebellion can be successful without sufficient numbers.

[Xiahou]

Perhaps you could, instead, elaborate on why torture would result in better information than information through trust and popularity, which would also have the positive effect of the enemy combattants stopping to fight. As you seem so certain of your standpoint, you must, surely, have some very good arguments that support that torture would be such a useful weapon in this war.

Sorry, that's just comical.... we capture Zarqawi and he says "You know what? Since you guys are so popular and trustworthy, I'm just going to tell you everything I know!"
In fact, I probably shouldnt even have said "captured" surely, he would've just turned himself in to an enemy that was popular and trustworth.

Think of all the lives that could've been saved in WW2- the Japanese probably just bombed Pearl Harbor because the US wasnt popular enough.

Do you know what the average Shiite would do to Saddam if they were given 5 minutes alone with him? Do you think they care if we're mean to some bigshot terrorist leader who's been blowing up their policemen? Your entire argument is fallacious. As I've said, no one is seriously advocating the rounding up of Iraqis off the street and sticking them with cattle prods until one of them tells us something. What we're discussing is what to do with high-value terrorists that we're able to capture to get them to give us actionable intel on their organization.

[Rodion Romanovich]

As I've said, no one is seriously advocating the rounding up of Iraqis off the street and sticking them with cattle prods until one of them tells us something. What we're discussing is what to do with high-value terrorists that we're able to capture to get them to give us actionable intel on their organization.

Like the innocent German citizen that was kidnapped and tortured? That's what I'm talking about. The usage of torture on innocents. If the innocent knows nothing, they can go on for half a year without getting any information. It's not very pleasant to have to suffer torture for half a year.

Fine, hopefully you who are in favor of the torture have some top secret reason for why torture is good to use, a reason which would be politically fatal to say aloud. In any case I gain nothing from a discussion that turns into a debate without proper argumentation, where attempts are made at silencing the arguments of the opposition by jokes and misquoting. I'm for discussion and Socratic analysis, not for parliament style debating. Have fun with this thread, I'm outta here... Just don't come and torture me...

[A.Saturnus]

Can anyone explain to me why, morally, torture should be forbidden in our war in Iraq (I could say War on Terror, but that term really doesn't apply to our current situation).

The question why something is immoral is meaningless. Torturing is immoral for the same reason that it is immoral for your neighbour to break into your house and steal things or harm you. There either is a morality or there´s none, 'why' is not a question that can be applied to it.

[Spetulhu]

Sorry, that's just comical.... we capture Zarqawi and he says "You know what? Since you guys are so popular and trustworthy, I'm just going to tell you everything I know!"
In fact, I probably shouldnt even have said "captured" surely, he would've just turned himself in to an enemy that was popular and trustworth.

Sure, a guy like that isn't going to tell you anything useful just because you're nice to him. But is he going to tell the truth to avoid torture? And will anyone believe him?

Why aren't you using torture in your own judicial system if it's such a great idea?

[Tribesman]

oh well , a couple of weeks in boot camp and your instuctors still havn't given you the run down on torture Del ?
It isn't nice , and it isn't allowed because it isn't nice , so you can come out with oh but war isn't nice anyway , but that is irrelevant .if your instructors are failing to teach you properly can we expect to see your smiling face being held up to the media as an example of a rotten apple that isn't really representative of the miltary and its long establised values ?

[Kralizec]

McCain says that information gathered through torture is not useful at all, and he has first hand experience.

Even if it does yield intelligence, it's still comes down to "the end justifies the means". Allowing torture on anyone means abandoning one of the principles by wich the USA claimed the higher moral ground. By allowing torture on suspects you do not only set a precedent, you're also opening the door for worse. It's like a stairway, where the first tread downwards is the most difficult. When you're a tread lower, you realise it wasn't that hard- and what you gained from it certainly is welcome. When you realise there's more further down, you take another tread down. Then another one, and another one, till you either reach the very bottom or fall from the stairs and break your neck, but by that time absolutely nobody's going to feel sorry for you anymore. Principles should never be sacrificed like that. Every step downwards, every erosion invites the next one.

Torture is wrong.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

do Chinese burns and nipple twisters count as torture?

[Xiahou]

McCain says that information gathered through torture is not useful at all, and he has first hand experience.

Two points. 1. He's wrong, torture can be very effective. 2. We're not contemplating torture anyway.

[Soulforged]

Two points. 1. He's wrong, torture can be very effective. 2. We're not contemplating torture anyway.

Torture is effective to drag information or create it out of the nothing. But wheter it's the first or the second it doesn't matter. The court presumes that it's inmoral and the information was created. That's why it has no pratical use in any respectable country as yours, at least I think so. So the effectiveness is relative, and even if it was absolute it will still not have any pratical relevance.

On the topic: I think that everything has been said, but... I agree with you in many things DA, for example in that the war is already a violation of every principle the humanity appears to uphold. But no: you're only justified to apply violence and strenght when the situation requires it, and only to defend lives, in an inmediat or eventual form. Violence and strenght to get information is not fine from where you look at it. If you defend it only because it's more inmorality in the inmorality then it's not excuse, an evil doesn't justifies more evils.

[bmolsson]

So if CIA wouldn't have used torture, they would know there where no WMD in Iraq and invasion wouldn't been necessary ??

[Adrian II]

Alright, let me ask-- what the hell is the matter with torture? Are we not at War? What is this nonsense about being Humane? Personally, I don't think that KILLING people is very humane. And don't even try any hogwash about quick, clean kills-- what if you get your leg blown off and bleed to death? Or shot in the neck and slowly choke to death? And what if you are forced to watch one of your best buddies slowly suffer and die from such an injury? Would that not be psychological torture as well?

It is horrible that people must die such deaths and undergo such torment, but such is the price they pay for acting as combatants on a hot battlefield. Or perhaps simply for being an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time-- no one said that war was fair. What I do not understand is in what way Torture is morally distinct-- it is also horrible that people must undergo such torment and humiliation, but such is the price to pay for associating with terrorists and being a carrier of militarily useful information. Or perhaps simply for being an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time-- no one said that war was fair.

I will grant that in many cases there may be a straight-forward "hearts and minds" practicality to prohibiting torture, but that is a practical and not a moral objection. Can anyone explain to me why, morally, torture should be forbidden in our war in Iraq (I could say War on Terror, but that term really doesn't apply to our current situation). Or is it a purely Practical concern? Basically, why all the hubbub?

I'm interested to hear people's opinions, but I suspect that much of the outcry over "torture" may be due simply to delusional squeamishness.

DA

After their first military training many youngsters want to see black and white, be the toughest of the tough, forget about everything they were taught before. The prospect of serving and maybe dying in a war, which is inherently unjust because they were never asked in the first place and compounded by the lack of purpose of their own leaders, makes them want to be callous, feel doomed, part of another 'race', the only race on earth that knows what life and death and suffering are really all about.

The same happened to a friend of mine in the Israeli army, who was equally 'firm' and equally... unprepared. He went in to crush Palestinian skulls, but they got under his skull first and he came out a nervous wreck. Beware, Del Arroyo, the monster is in your own head and nowhere else. Your enemies know that; Iraq has been at war with itself for fifty years. They will find a way to get to your inner monster, to hurt and humiliate and enrage it to the point that it may destroy you. And they will, unless you are damned sure of what you stand for, and unless what you stand for is different from what they stand for. Better start fighting your inner monster now.

Take care.

[Lemur]

Two points. 1. He's wrong, torture can be very effective. 2. We're not contemplating torture anyway.

Who knew Xihaou knew more about torture and interrogation than any of the leading experts? Astonishing the things I learn on this board.

[Xiahou]

Who knew Xihaou knew more about torture and interrogation than any of the leading experts? Astonishing the things I learn on this board.

Honestly, are you deliberately being obtuse? There are many documented cases of the strongest-willed people giving up information under torture or extreme coercion, including a case I already mentioned. Go ask your "experts" they'll tell you the same. That doesnt make torture the right thing to do- but to say it never works is a totally bogus argument. Get real.

McCain is his own refutation on this matter. When asked about torture under a "ticking bomb" scenario, he states that he'd expect people to do what they had to to save lives and use that as a defense if charged. Well Senator, if torture never works why would it be of any use in a "ticking bomb" scenario?

[Lemur]

Xihaou, the problem with getting info from torture is not that people don't talk. The problem is that they'll say anything -- anything -- to make the pain stop. If they don't have the info you're looking for, they will make it up. Not because they're clever, but simply because they want the pain to go away.

If you want to break someone, by all means, use torture. If you want reliable information, you have to suborn them. This is interrogation 101, man.

[edit]

BTW, I don't see you mentioning a specific case in this thread. Am I blind, or could you elucidate?

[GoreBag]

do Chinese burns and nipple twisters count as torture?

No, but they're legal consequences for not making it to the doorknob in time.

[Xiahou]

[edit]

BTW, I don't see you mentioning a specific case in this thread. Am I blind, or could you elucidate?

I mentioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed- he was said to have started singing like a canary after about 2.5 minutes of waterboarding, which they said, was the longest anyone had held out up til that point.

Understand, I'm totally leaving morality and ethics at the door- but torture and extreme coercion, if used intelligently can and does gain useful intelligence. As you rightly point out, I'm not an intelligence expert- so I assume those that are could frame better questions- however, certainly the idea would be to ask for answers to as specific a question as is possible. You wouldn't ask "Where is Bin Laden?", clearly, they would lie because you have no way of fact checking them in a timely fashion. However, more specific questions or even some questions you already know the answer to mixed in could be very effective I would imagine.

I think this could potentially be an interesting discussion- but we have to set aside the mistaken belief that torture or coercion can never yield useful information.

[Franconicus]

Let's get real! What is this fight about. It is criminal terrorist fighting the free world. You may say that the free world must use weapons like torture to defend its people and its freedom. And it is still better than the criminals.
Wrong! Using torture (every kind of torture, there is no soft torture), every violtion of human rights makes you a thread for the free world. In fact I fear those most who violate human rights to defend us.

By torture you get a lot of information; the prisoner always tells you what you want to hear. AQ is a world wide organisation - yes! They plan attacks against nuklear plants - sure. They want to kill little children - no doubt.

Worst thing about torture is what it does to the society. Look at America. People are seriously discussing if torture is acceptable, which kind of torture, who should be tortured and when, and there is a group of Americans defending or play down the issue. If this thing is over America will not be the same as it used to be. I fear the trauma will be bigger than after Vietnam.

[English assassin]

There either is a morality or there´s none, 'why' is not a question that can be applied to it.

OT, but you philosophers never cease to amaze me. There is always a why to human behaviour. We are animals after all.

I mentioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed- he was said to have started singing like a canary after about 2.5 minutes of waterboarding, which they said, was the longest anyone had held out up til that point.

This is the waterboarding that is not a torture, am I right? Its uncomfortable and humiliating coercion? Well, whoda thunk that these terrorists are such sissies that after 2.5 minutes of discomfort they are coughing up the beans? i guess we don't got much to worry about after all...

Oh and by the way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids both torture and ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’

As for whether its reliable, one British citizen, Shafiq Rasul, captured in Afghanistan, confessed under torture to having been with Osama bin Laden on a particular day. In reality, he had been working at Curry’s in Tipton. I hear the CIA are still staking out the washing machine department in case Osama is working there as a salesman...

[Idaho]

OT, but you philosophers never cease to amaze me. There is always a why to human behaviour. We are animals after all.

You can't switch on and off the moral highground like a light switch. You can't say 'we are better than x' one minute then the next hide behind some nonsense about being animals.

Are you an animal? If yes, you can torture. But don't expect us to respect your opinions too. If no, then we'll listen, but you can't torture.

[Fragony]

Torture is always wrong, and I don't think it will give accurate information. Someone who hasn't slept for days will say anything just to get a nap.

But it's fun

[Pannonian]

Xihaou, the problem with getting info from torture is not that people don't talk. The problem is that they'll say anything -- anything -- to make the pain stop. If they don't have the info you're looking for, they will make it up. Not because they're clever, but simply because they want the pain to go away.

If you want to break someone, by all means, use torture. If you want reliable information, you have to suborn them. This is interrogation 101, man.

[edit]

BTW, I don't see you mentioning a specific case in this thread. Am I blind, or could you elucidate?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_434020.htm

JINGSHAN, Hubei Province: A man who served 11 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering his wife was officially cleared yesterday.

She Xianglin, 39, walked free following the pronouncement of the Jingshan County People's Court, the same body which in 1998 sentenced him to a 15-year jail term.

The original conviction came based on a confession which She says was extracted under police torture.

The miscarriage of justice came to light when She's wife, Zhang Zaiyu, the supposed victim of She's "crime," resurfaced late last month after being missing for 11 years.