No Studies on Efficacy of Torture

[Lemur]

One of the pillars of the pro-torture backroomers is that torture is efficient, when used properly. Apparently there is no data to back that up.

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon's senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

Kleinman wrote that intelligence gathered with coercion is sometimes inaccurate or false, noting that isolation, a tactic U.S. officials have used regularly, causes "profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort" and can "significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

Full study can be read here.

Admittedly, "no evidence" is not the same as "it doesn't work," but I think it ought to be a factor when one feels all rah-rah about torturing another human being. The ultimate point of torture is torture. This is something our enemies understand very well. They aren't trying to get intel or secrets; they're inflicting pain and death as ends within themselves.

As evidence, I offer the Al Qaeda Torture Manual. Not safe for work, not safe for kids, not safe for your peace of mind.

[Don Corleone]

That manual is scary, almost like they've been watching episodes of "Jackass".

[Xiahou]

Wasn't that the manual that we found when we rescued 42 Iraqis from a Al Qaeda torture/re-education house? I really see no comparison between waterboarding someone like KSM vs torturing people as illustrated above until they agree to strap bombs to themselves. I'm sure waterboarding can be horrific, but given the choice I'd choose it any day, everyday when compared to anything they have illustrated in their manual. The link goes on to show that Al Qaeda apparently is following their manual to the letter.

I suppose the silver lining, if there is one, is that US forces were apparently tipped off to this torture chamber by local Iraqis. That's a step, however small, in the right direction.

[macsen rufus]

"significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

Brings to mind:

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
"How many do you want me to see?"

Ends don't justify means - means taint the ends, IMHO.

[Odin]

That manual is scary, almost like they've been watching episodes of "Jackass".

Hey now, "Jackass" is one of my guilty pleasures, lets not start slamming one of the greatest TV programs of all time.

What strikes me most is, that experts, studies whatever seem to conclude torture has no lasting value by way of usable data.

Yet since man has been at war, its been employed, torture seems to me to be a human condition of war along the lines of "to the victors go the spoils" no matter how gruesome those spoils may be.

Even in the enlightened age we live in today, torutre remains a feature of war and the human condition, its cause and rational, I think, go deeper then value of data derived from the act

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The primary use of torture and mutilation, historically, is to scare and horrify the opposition. Thus we have 99 blinded men led home by one who was only half blinded (somewhere in the Balkans, forget the specifics). Thus also the beheading of a journalist who's reportage was negative regarding the terror group. Goal: scare and/or sicken the opposition enough that they either will not (or at least don't care to pay the price to) oppose you.

If torture is being used to force a confession or otherwise "break" an individual it will usually accomplish its goal. Everyone has a breaking point, so unless the tortured person dies prior to reaching this point, there will be a "confession."

Obviously, this negates torture as a tool of law and makes any such confessions valueless. Many will confess simply to make the torture stop.

Setting aside, for the moment, the overarching morality question....

Will a "broken" individual reveal accurate or useful information? Information gathering is not the same issue as confession generation. Mixed answer here. The report suggests that the information gathered through this approach is no more (and possibly less) valuable than information gathered through other interrogation techniques.

Is the information gathered more quickly through torture? Not sure; and not sure if anything we've learned in the WoT was time-sensitive enough. Were there any proverbial "imminent attacks" prevented?

I am not privy to the "harsh methods" results, so I cannot evaluate whether the use of such methods was justifiable in terms of the rapidity with which the information was extracted or gathered from individuals who would not have responded to "normal" interrogation.

If not, then it becomes difficult to justify such techniques if normal interrogation procedures would produce the same quality and timeliness in overall intelligence.

[Lemur]

I am not privy to the "harsh methods" results, so I cannot evaluate whether the use of such methods was justifiable in terms of the rapidity with which the information was extracted or gathered from individuals who would not have responded to "normal" interrogation.

If not, then it becomes difficult to justify such techniques if normal interrogation procedures would produce the same quality and timeliness in overall intelligence.

That's the problem -- nobody knows. No studies have been conducted, so all talk of what's more efficient is anecdotal at best. We have sullied our reputation and damaged ourselves for a complete intangible.

As Orwell wrote, the point of torture is torture.

[Xiahou]

Is the information gathered more quickly through torture? Not sure; and not sure if anything we've learned in the WoT was time-sensitive enough. Were there any proverbial "imminent attacks" prevented?

One more time, let me point out that according to Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC news, and his CIA sources, that much information has been gained- including information about possible future attacks.

I've posted this before, but here it is for you Seamus- Ross interviewed by O'Reilly.

[CrossLOPER]

I've posted this before, but here it is for you Seamus- Ross interviewed by O'Reilly.

foxnews.lol

[Xiahou]

foxnews.lol

Nice refutation. You really pwnt me there. What a n00b I was.

[Lemur]

One more time, let me point out that according to Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC news, and his CIA sources, that much information has been gained- including information about possible future attacks.

Brian Ross being personally convinced of something is rather different than methodical studies showing that torture is more effective and/or efficient than normal interrogation. We're still stuck in anecdotal land.

And for what it's worth, Brian Ross was one of many, many reporters credulously reporting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. He's good, but he ain't perfect.

Lastly, Crossloper does have a point. You're posting links to Bill O'Reilly's show? I mean, really, come on, is that in good taste? Ross is a serious reporter, but O'Reilly is an undiluted political hack. Likewise, there may be valuable information on Fred Phelps' website, but it's rather poor taste to link to it.

[Odin]

Nice refutation. You really pwnt me there. What a n00b I was.

Well it is fox...

[Xiahou]

Brian Ross being personally convinced of something is rather different than methodical studies showing that torture is more effective and/or efficient than normal interrogation. We're still stuck in anecdotal land.

When people are slinging about absolutes such as "Torture never yields useful intel", all you need is anecdotal information to prove such statements false. There's never been to credible study to say that torture can't work- what I'm saying is that we know it can and we know it has. We can't show, nor do I believe that it always will provide useful information in all situations- but to say that it can never provide useful information is absurd. Further, there may be no studies on the subject, but last time I checked, all special forces, covert operatives, ect are all subjected to harsh interrogation techniques as part of their training. And they all break and give up information before it's completed.

And for what it's worth, Brian Ross was one of many, many reporters credulously reporting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. He's good, but he ain't perfect.

This is astonishing to me. Of course he reported on it. It was the common wisdom at the time. Let's not buy into the government conspiracy gibberish here. Intelligence agencies, media outlets, and other NGO's all thought Iraq had at least some WMDs.

Lastly, Crossloper does have a point. You're posting links to Bill O'Reilly's show? I mean, really, come on, is that in good taste? Ross is a serious reporter, but O'Reilly is an undiluted political hack. Likewise, there may be valuable information on Fred Phelps' website, but it's rather poor taste to link to it.

Two points here. 1) It doesn't matter who's interviewing Ross, it matters what he's saying. 2) I believe Seamus is an O'Reilly fan, so I thought he'd appreciate seeing Ross's findings in that format. Lastly, did you watch the link?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

Hannity is an "undiluted political hack." His radio show could as easily be produced in a studio funded by Gingrich's PAC as anywhere else. O'Reilly is not, though he slants about 70-30 right wing with the national security, law & order, and econ stuff being right wing and a lot of the social issues/safety net issues fairly left wing -- which is a fairly mainstream mix for the USA.


Xiahou:

I wasn't arguing that the harsh methods do not get results. I was expressing concern that these harsh methods might not generate more, better, and/or faster results. I am skeptical of their use unless it does. Morally, its shaky ground at best and I am not willing to accept the moral cost without a practical payoff on the other end.

It may well be that harsh methods DO work with people who otherwise would reveal nothing, or much faster with people who would "break" anyway but would only do so after months of standard interrogation, or more completely "break" individuals who would otherwise hold back information. What we don't see is evidence that this is so -- or other investigators/ our representatives coming forward to assure us that they have seen that data and are satisfied that this approach is superior to standard techniques.

If that IS the case, I still wouldn't like it -- but would probably condone it (reluctantly) in the interest of protecting our citizens.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When people are slinging about absolutes such as "Torture never yields useful intel,

They are either lying to themselves or very naive. Never say never

[Lemur]

There's never been to credible study to say that torture can't work- what I'm saying is that we know it can and we know it has.

I realize you're making a limited argument, but we certainly don't know that it has been more efficient than normal interrogation. That's pure supposition on your part, backed by no data.

Consider, seriously, whether normal interrogation techniques could have helped us arrive at a similar place. It's not an incredible or outlandish idea. Then it becomes worth asking how exactly we know that it has been worth sacrificing so much prestige and power in exchange for so dubious a prize. It makes no sense, unless you accept what our enemies already know: The point of torture is torture.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The point of torture is torture

The point is what constitutes torture.

Listen here

[Rodion Romanovich]

Good find Lemur! Let me also point out that torture, apart from being totally useless for finding information, also turns public opinion against the user of such methods. Innocent civilians no longer dare report information about terrorists to officials of a government that kidnaps and torture innocent people without proof or a trial. Say if you knew something about torture - would you report it to someone that had kidnapped several innocent civilians and tortured them for years before releasing them, and are still detaining and torturing many who have nothing that suggests they aren't innocent? I wouldn't.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Let me also point out that torture, apart from being totally useless for finding information,

If you people would stop making ridiculous statements like this it would go much further in making your point.

[ShadeHonestus]

Good post Lemur, describing the ambiguity of information out there. You have veterans stating that it did or did not work on them. Hell McCain even stated how it worked on him, the parents of a friend of mine giving him medical treatment once he talked. Although we thirst for this knowledge now, a competent study of absolute yes or no to its value at 100% or nothing will not ever be accomplished. I believe we won't know its complete picture of effectiveness for many years as we really can't go about telling which plots torture has revealed, or the lives saved as Tenet suggests. Furthermore we really don't want to go talking about the concrete effectiveness of those techniques used by the CIA for the last 60 years. Unless the rogue organizations and terrorist groups around the world have been keeping a database of their own, why reveal to them a concrete study. If a theoretical study comes out that states waterboarding works 40% of the time, but breaking a guys ankles works 90% of the time, who does that benefit? Not us as we don't engage in the breaking of ankles...however we'll see more of those civilian captives worldwide who manage to retain their heads, possess broken ankles.

I firmly believe that our techniques have and do work, but do they work 100% of the time? Of course not and neither should we expect them to. What in life works 100% of the time for all time. The question is the threshold for the reality of the ratio.

[Slyspy]

The most compelling aspect of this is Seamus' point that if we can't tell whether torture is actually useful (over other techniques) then is it worth sacrificing the moral stance.

And you don't just lose the moral high ground. The sad fact is that the US lost alot of goodwill when it started building off shore prisons, secret rendition flights and admitted the use of "light" torture such as waterboarding. Lost goodwill translates to lost, unwilling or less cooperative allies. It doesn't matter whether or not the US actually starts removing fingernails or electrocuting people because the damage has already been done to their reputation. They have created a climate in which the use of torture is entirely possible (maybe even probable if you are a cynic).

A good torturer is not one who can gain the best information but the one who can keep the subject alive the longest.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And you don't just lose the moral high ground. The sad fact is that the US lost alot of goodwill when it started building off shore prisons, secret rendition flights and admitted the use of "light" torture such as waterboarding. Lost goodwill translates to lost, unwilling or less cooperative allies.

They all do or did it too. Give me a break with the holier than thou crap. We learned out tecniques from the SAS

[Odin]

The most compelling aspect of this is Seamus' point that if we can't tell whether torture is actually useful (over other techniques) then is it worth sacrificing the moral stance.

Yeah Seamus has a pretty good nose for the middle ground of issues, and thats normally where the truth lies.

And you don't just lose the moral high ground. The sad fact is that the US lost alot of goodwill when it started building off shore prisons, secret rendition flights and admitted the use of "light" torture such as waterboarding. Lost goodwill translates to lost, unwilling or less cooperative allies. It doesn't matter whether or not the US actually starts removing fingernails or electrocuting people because the damage has already been done to their reputation.

That lost goodwill bit, well the horse has been out of that barn for some time, it wasnt going to get much worse then it was. However we do have Ms. USA being booed at the miss universe so maybe its all shot now anyway.

Torture for the purpose of information gathering has value, the problem is that the premise for the value gained (the war on terror) is suspect by many. That dosent mean you cant get good data from methods employed.

Is it okay to set humanity aside to garnish information that saves lives? Well I say it is, but it must be under the guise of having a creadable leader, policy, and threat and thats where I think the U.S. has tripped up.

that predates the rendition flights being exposed and admissions of techniques.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

that predates the rendition flights being exposed and admissions of techniques.

Yeah our biggest problem in the war on terror has been the New York Slimes. They should be brought up on sedition charges but people find Scooter Libby to be more of a security threat and leak lol.

[Slyspy]

They all do or did it too. Give me a break with the holier than thou crap. We learned out tecniques from the SAS

Although the morality and effectiveness of torture is oft debated why do you think it is currently an issue?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Although the morality and effectiveness of torture is oft debated why do you think it is currently an issue?

Gee i wonder LOL.

[Slyspy]

Gee i wonder LOL.

Quite.

So why the aggressive response to my earlier post?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So why the aggressive response to my earlier post?
__________________

Didnt you see the smiley? And Its not like no one else does or has ever practiced it. And again what constitutes torture?

[Watchman]

"But someone else does it too" and "but this isn't real torture" don't exactly cut it you know. Those are called "lame excuses" around here.

[ajaxfetish]

Good find Lemur! Let me also point out that torture, apart from being totally useless for finding information, also turns public opinion against the user of such methods. Innocent civilians no longer dare report information about terrorists to officials of a government that kidnaps and torture innocent people without proof or a trial. Say if you knew something about torture - would you report it to someone that had kidnapped several innocent civilians and tortured them for years before releasing them, and are still detaining and torturing many who have nothing that suggests they aren't innocent? I wouldn't.

Interesting thought. I hadn't considered it in these terms yet, but I suppose if I had suspicions about a neighbor but wasn't sure, I'd be a lot less likely to call up homeland security if I thought he might be tortured. I'd hate to be responsible for doing something like that to an innocent man.

Ajax