Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2013, 07:22 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 06:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suspect that the results are due to an inability to discern who has the information and who does not.

Torturing someone for answers he doesn't have will obviously produce misinformation.
Torturing someone who actually possesses the information? Well, do we have accurate statistics on that?

Several experiments have been conducted in an effort to explore the reliability of information provided under extreme physical and psychological duress. Here are a couple.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...104328.htm
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/825.short

Here are numerous statements given by CIA and FBI operatives and interrogators on the ineffectiveness of torture.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2007/12/...formation/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/i...ation.html

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 07:22 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 06:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suspect that the results are due to an inability to discern who has the information and who does not.

Torturing someone for answers he doesn't have will obviously produce misinformation.
Torturing someone who actually possesses the information? Well, do we have accurate statistics on that?

Several experiments have been conducted in an effort to explore the reliability of information provided under extreme physical and psychological duress. Here are a couple.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...104328.htm
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/825.short

Here are numerous statements given by CIA and FBI operatives and interrogators on the ineffectiveness of torture.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2007/12/...formation/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/i...ation.html

Those don't address my question. I don't dispute that indiscriminate torture is unreliable (and immoral), but whether it works in specific instances.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 07:31 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Those don't address my question. I don't dispute that indiscriminate torture is unreliable (and immoral), but whether it works in specific instances.

Whether or not it works in isolated and rare circumstances is irrelevant, but I do not believe any accurate statistics exist.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 07:35 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 07:31 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Those don't address my question. I don't dispute that indiscriminate torture is unreliable (and immoral), but whether it works in specific instances.

Whether or not it works in isolated and rare circumstances is irrelevant, but I do not believe any accurate statistics exist.

I wouldn't call it irrelevant. It is one of the arguments used for condoning it.

As I stated elsewhere, I wouldn't want to live in a society that condones torture, especially institutionalized, official torture.
Think "Spanish Inquisition".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 07:59 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  I wouldn't call it irrelevant. It is one of the arguments used for condoning it.

It is entirely irrelevant. There is a lack of statistics for that argument and, even if there are isolated cases in which it would produce reliable information, it still has a higher chance of producing inaccurate information.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 08:16 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 07:59 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  I wouldn't call it irrelevant. It is one of the arguments used for condoning it.

It is entirely irrelevant. There is a lack of statistics for that argument and, even if there are isolated cases in which it would produce reliable information, it still has a higher chance of producing inaccurate information.

It is relevant to the debate because 'they' continue to use it in the debate.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook
(03-08-2013 08:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is relevant to the debate because 'they' continue to use it in the debate.

It is a malformed argument that deserves no recognition until evidence is provided that said instances provide themselves frequently enough to contradict current evidence. In other words, it is pointless to argue it.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: