Thursday, April 23, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Believe Me, It's Torture

by Christopher Hitchens

I received several Google Alerts today on this topic and after following a few links, this article came up. It's from last August but really needs to be seen by anyone who hasn't before and it is well worth reading and seeing the video again if you have. With all of the recent torture news in the US this is even more pertinent now than when it was published last year. There is a link to the YouTube video below which is the same as the video in the article, it's just cleaner to embed. It's well worth the time to click through and read the article and watch the video. Note the safeguards in place and how long he lasted knowing that he could stop instantly. Imagine if you had no way to know how long it would last and there was no way to stop and an agonizing death was the probably outcome. However, thinking was not possible. There was only the certainty and panic that you were about to die.
/Mike
Reposted from
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

blank

Here is the most chilling way I can find of stating the matter. Until recently, “waterboarding” was something that Americans did to other Americans. It was inflicted, and endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). In these harsh exercises, brave men and women were introduced to the sorts of barbarism that they might expect to meet at the hands of a lawless foe who disregarded the Geneva Conventions. But it was something that Americans were being trained to resist, not to inflict.

Exploring this narrow but deep distinction, on a gorgeous day last May I found myself deep in the hill country of western North Carolina, preparing to be surprised by a team of extremely hardened veterans who had confronted their country’s enemies in highly arduous terrain all over the world. They knew about everything from unarmed combat to enhanced interrogation and, in exchange for anonymity, were going to show me as nearly as possible what real waterboarding might be like.

It goes without saying that I knew I could stop the process at any time, and that when it was all over I would be released into happy daylight rather than returned to a darkened cell. But it’s been well said that cowards die many times before their deaths, and it was difficult for me to completely forget the clause in the contract of indemnification that I had signed. This document (written by one who knew) stated revealingly:

“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.

...
click to continue reading
_______________________________________________________

Posted: Thursday, April 23, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 417 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #369246 by rod-the-farmer on April 23, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Prescient of Christopher....

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

2. Comment #369248 by Animavore on April 23, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Isn't this like from last year?

Other Comments by Animavore

3. Comment #369250 by Sciros on April 23, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Yeah there was a thread on the forums about it a looong time ago.

Other Comments by Sciros

4. Comment #369252 by /Mike on April 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Yes, it was from last August. I had several Google Alerts today which lead to this article. It's worth seeing and reading again even if seen before.

Other Comments by /Mike

5. Comment #369266 by steveroot on April 23, 2009 at 6:34 pm

An interesting and relevant interview on NPR (All Things Considered) today:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103421778

Excerpt:
"An Air Force interrogator tried to stop the harsh techniques he witnessed in Iraq when he went there in 2003. But his efforts to halt abusive interrogations were rebuffed and, in his words, made him 'the most unpopular officer' in Iraq."

It would seem we need more officers of Col. Kleinman's caliber.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

6. Comment #369270 by mordacious1 on April 23, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Sean Hannity has agreed to be waterboarded for charity. Whereas I don't have any extra money to contribute to this noble cause, I would agree to participate in the procedure from the giving side. :)

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #369271 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on April 23, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Ok, so I missed this the first time 'round. My thanks to Hitch for going through that... I think that rather destroys the "oh, it isn't that bad" line of reasoning. It's torture, plain and simple.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

8. Comment #369273 by ricklend on April 23, 2009 at 6:47 pm

It is obviously torture, it is obviously illegal, and some people in the former Bush administration MUST be held accountable for breaking the law. Otherwise why do we have laws?

Other Comments by ricklend

9. Comment #369283 by ricklend on April 23, 2009 at 7:11 pm

I'll bet Sean Hannity backs out of his agreement to be waterboarded for charity. He and Glenn Beck, who said on fixed news he didn't think waterboarding was torture, should be waterboarded simply to see if it works. While being waterboarded, tell the TRUTH boys -- don't just say what we want you to admit.

Other Comments by ricklend

10. Comment #369287 by HappyPrimate on April 23, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Steveroot - Thanks so much for the link. I listen to NPR as much as I can but missed that interview.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

11. Comment #369288 by zeroangel on April 23, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Good article. I read it last year though. Hitch is the man.

Other Comments by zeroangel

12. Comment #369292 by /Mike on April 23, 2009 at 7:42 pm

I was pretty sure this had been discussed here before and looked to see if I could find the previous discussion so that I could post the links. I didn't find anything in Latest News but did find a discussion in the Forum
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=36524&start=425&hilit=waterboard#p1059766

Other Comments by /Mike

13. Comment #369312 by ksskidude on April 23, 2009 at 8:26 pm

Just crazy! It's torture Hitch, there is a reason its called torture. It took maybe 30 seconds and he was done.
I wouldn't ever want to have to find out just how awful and scary that this could be.

Other Comments by ksskidude

14. Comment #369323 by Sciros on April 23, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Ok, so I missed this the first time 'round. My thanks to Hitch for going through that... I think that rather destroys the "oh, it isn't that bad" line of reasoning. It's torture, plain and simple.

I don't know who says "it isn't that bad" but I was pretty sure the whole point of it had always been that it is exactly "that bad" and that's why, torture or not, whatever you want to call it, it was employed at all!

If it's "not that bad" then it wouldn't have been employed as an interrogation technique.

I wonder what other interrogation techniques are used by the deadly-serious black ops people when they "gotta do what they gotta do."

"Torture" thresholds (what you call torture and what you call "just plain hardcore interrogation techniques but not quite torture") are different for different people, but in any case you need to draw the line somewhere if you're going to draw any line at all. I have no problem classifying waterboarding as torture. And there are other methods, that are purely psychological, that may actually be "worse" and that I would also classify as torture. In fact I find it very difficult to decide on a "line" at all, but I recognize that sometimes you need the baddies to tell you something and unless you break their spirit a bit they might not talk. And at the same time they can always lie if they have the guts for it, and then you're back at square one.

So I don't know how useful "torture" truly is. Supposedly there are cases where it (waterboarding) has shown to be useful. Is waterboarding as bad as we've gone? Is it as bad as we ever want to go? Do we want to "cut back" on the level of interrogation?

I guess in any case we will, at least as far as the public is concerned. (I am not convinced our military will on principle play "more fair" than the enemy no matter what the situation is.)

I've tried to go through the thought exercise many times, of how bad would someone have to be, and how useful is the information they have, and how likely should it be that via enough torture they'll give it up, that you should torture them for that information. I have never come up with a good answer. I don't have unwavering principles of the sort where I will never consider 20 lives worth more than 1 or something (by this I mean I've also never come to the conclusion that no matter what torture is out of the question).

Other Comments by Sciros

15. Comment #369341 by Cyboman on April 23, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Non-human animals are tortured on farms and in laboratories every day. It is inconsistent that we are concerned about humans being tortured but are content with other animals being tortured.

Other Comments by Cyboman

16. Comment #369344 by Sciros on April 23, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Inconsistent with what?

Other Comments by Sciros

17. Comment #369357 by JDAM on April 24, 2009 at 12:04 am

Thanks, Hitch. I think you've pretty well answered anyone who honestly believes that waterboarding is NOT torture. I am willing to bet that such a sentiment is universally expressed by people who don't have the foggiest notion of what it really is.

But why is torture practiced by us in the first place? Is it done only as a last resort in hopes that it will result in information that can be used to save innumerable lives? Is it done to satisfy the sadistic cravings of the torturer? Maybe as a punishment, perhaps for heinous acts perpetrated by the side the torturee is from? Maybe a combination of all of the above?

If one considers all the horrors of combat, why is putting a bullet into an enemy's spine so that he is paralyzed for as long as he lives, or has a limb (or limbs) blown off, or is blinded by a roadside bomb, stabbed with a bayonet,or any one of the myriad other purposfully inflicted maimings
that happen in combat any different than torture?

Oh, sure...we can say that all of this happens because the purpose of war is to kill and/or injure the enemy to the point that he will cease his resistance, and except for the extraction of useful intelligence, the combat process would pretty well satisfy all the other above stated reasons.

It would be wonderful if Humans could devise a way to settle serious differences of opinion without bloodshed, no matter how disgruntled the loser might be, but that has not happened yet and likely will not happen as long as the losers have the means to fight back. Therefore, getting actionable intelligence about the enemy's order of battle, intentions, weaknesses, etc. can result in the saving of hundreds or possibly even thousands or tens of thousands of lives ON BOTH SIDES!

We will all have our own personal priorities regarding blood conflict. Mine would be doing whatever is necessary to keep as many of our side alive and unharmed as possible and getting actionable intelligence is the surest way to make that happen. The vast majority of the time, captured enemy combatants are not going to volunteer the information we need and need to be persuaded.

All this sanctimonious hand-wringing over moral superiority because "WE don't torture!" is actually all for naught. We lose any moral superiority by entering into blood combat in the first place. After that, it is only a matter of whatever it takes to win.

Other Comments by JDAM

18. Comment #369358 by Pandora toothpaste on April 24, 2009 at 12:11 am

I worry that this video may proliferate copy-cat childish bullying imitations : /

Other Comments by Pandora toothpaste

19. Comment #369359 by quantum_flux on April 24, 2009 at 12:13 am

I'm not sure what Hitch was thinking it was going to be like before he went through the waterboarding. What!? Did he think it was going to be all flowers and fairies?

Get real....torture works, it gets people talking and that's exactly what it is supposed to do. As for the whole "what if they have the wrong person", well, that is basically a distrust on the American intelligence agencies. Oh, cut the crap, the likelihood of that occuring is very nil. It is highly improbable that the guys being waterboarded were stealing lollipops from babies, much more like plotting 9/11 vesion 2.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

20. Comment #369360 by Rawhard Dickins on April 24, 2009 at 12:14 am

Perhaps there'll be a memoirs from Bush now, . . . "How to Loose Friends and Alienate People"

It strikes me that the whole saga from 9/11 on could have been handled with a "softly softly" approach with better results and less loss of life.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

21. Comment #369362 by epeeist on April 24, 2009 at 12:18 am

Comment #369273 by ricklend:

It is obviously torture, it is obviously illegal, and some people in the former Bush administration MUST be held accountable for breaking the law. Otherwise why do we have laws?

You mean like this person - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/23/condoleezza-rice-cia-waterboarding

But she might just get a good attorney *cough* Ashcroft *cough* to claim that waterboarding isn't torture.

Other Comments by epeeist

22. Comment #369366 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2009 at 12:43 am

Off topic-

Quantum_Flux, I'm still waiting for your response about how there is no direct evidence for the existence of black holes.

I'm starting to think you don't have one.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #369373 by epeeist on April 24, 2009 at 12:59 am

Comment #369366 by Quetzalcoatl:

I'm starting to think you don't have one.

I'm starting to think he doesn't know how to make a rational argument:

Get real....torture works, it gets people talking and that's exactly what it is supposed to do. As for the whole "what if they have the wrong person", well, that is basically a distrust on the American intelligence agencies. Oh, cut the crap, the likelihood of that occuring is very nil. It is highly improbable that the guys being waterboarded were stealing lollipops from babies, much more like plotting 9/11 vesion 2.

Other Comments by epeeist

24. Comment #369376 by Quetzalcoatl on April 24, 2009 at 1:07 am

Quantum_Flux-

As for the whole "what if they have the wrong person", well, that is basically a distrust on the American intelligence agencies. Oh, cut the crap, the likelihood of that occuring is very nil

Yes, because the intelligence agencies are really very reliable. Look at the great jobs they've done all over the world.

And "very nil"? Is that a technical term?

EDIT: here's the comment I want a response to that I mentioned in 22:

Black Holes

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

25. Comment #369377 by Roger Stanyard on April 24, 2009 at 1:10 am

quantum flux says

Get real....torture works,...

So? So did concentration camps, so does genocide, so does napalm, so do nuclear bombs, so does germ warfare......

Name me one known terrorist attack on the USA that has been stoped by torture.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

26. Comment #369378 by littletrotsky13 on April 24, 2009 at 1:12 am

To Comment #369359
Of the 80,000 or so people abducted and tortured under extraodinary rendition laws it is estimated by a senior member of the army (was it a colonel? I can't remember) that less than 10,000 of these were in any way affiliated with terrorism, and even less were connected in any serious way.
So that's at least 70,000 people tortured excessively.
Can you really blame me FOR distrusting US intelligence agencies?

Other Comments by littletrotsky13

27. Comment #369385 by bendigeidfran on April 24, 2009 at 1:42 am

Have we really no drugs to shoot up these people to loosen their tongues? The GI's may have to dance with the orange-suited for a few hours, but it could be made into a video and profits used to help the afflicted.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

28. Comment #369389 by gcdavis on April 24, 2009 at 1:55 am

Apparently Hitch is not used to water without whiskey otherwise he would have lasted a bit longer.

I guess most of us would agree that State sanctioned torture cannot be condoned in a civilised society; however every State has probably used some form of torture covertly. The ends justify the means argument could have some merit. If prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks had been obtained by torture and that had resulted in the perpetrators being arrested before they had a chance to act who here would say that it was a morally superior act to let 4000 people die?

The argument that torture probably does not result in reliable information is confounded in a situation like that described above when the ends did justify the means.

Other Comments by gcdavis

29. Comment #369394 by ColdFusionLazarus on April 24, 2009 at 2:08 am

Excellent post from Sciros. It doesn't answer anything, but I agree with the way that he is agonising over something that we don't fully understand. It's a bit simplistic to talk about "the bad guys", but sometimes it's "me or him", and my survival instinct says, when my life (or the lives of my tribe) is threatened directly by the actions of the other guy then the other guy should be stopped. I don't know how to stop it. How do you silence the lambs? But it's somebody's job to protect us, and I just don't know how they are supposed to do that job well.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

30. Comment #369397 by ColdFusionLazarus on April 24, 2009 at 2:17 am

26. Comment #369377 by Roger Stanyard on April 24, 2009 at 1:10 am
Name me one known terrorist attack on the USA that has been stoped by torture.

That just cannot be a genuine question.
1) The torturers are never going to admit they actually used torture
2) If the destruction never happened then it's likely the day of normality was not widely reported.

The lack of easily obtained evidence does not neccessarily mean that torture hasn't been useful to a "civilised" society in the past.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

31. Comment #369400 by Ignorant Amos on April 24, 2009 at 2:19 am

Comment #369359 by quantum_flux

You're talking out or your arse!!!!

I served in the British army for 14 years and we played a wee game like the SERE called Escape & Evasion where I had the dubious pleasure of playing on both sides at different times.

We had a technique very similar to waterboarding where a hessian sandbag would be placed over the head of the "victim" and continually soaked with water....trust me, its everything Hitch states and more.....bear in mind that this was carried out after various other niceties had taken there toll, sleep depravation, white noise treatmeant, stress position, ya get the idea. I've seen hardened squaddies piss themselves. It is counter productive, the victim will tell you anything you wish for the chance of a cup of tea and a blanket.

I know a good deal about it.....as a captive, there are various "cover" stories that are to be told under duress....then it becomes a guessing game as to what are the captors to believe.

Essentially then torture becomes a tool of revenge.

The same can be said of the procedures used in Northern Ireland during the 70's and 80's...it was the best recruiting Sargeant the I.R.A. could have wished for after incarceration without trial (internment) and we all know how well that works. (Guantanamo)

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

32. Comment #369412 by weemanafghan on April 24, 2009 at 3:08 am

So this form of torture is being advocated and used by a secular state or a religious state?

Other Comments by weemanafghan

33. Comment #369417 by MrPickwick on April 24, 2009 at 3:17 am

If the penalty for throwing a shoe to Bush is prison I just wonder what should the penalty be for torturing a human being...

Other Comments by MrPickwick

34. Comment #369422 by Santi Tafarella on April 24, 2009 at 3:30 am

weemanafghan:

You jokingly ask whether this is a secular or religious state practicing waterboarding.

I've actually been reading Jonathan Kirsch's history of the the Inquisition, titled "The Grand Inquisitor's Manuel: A History of Terror in the Name of God" (Harper-Collins 2008), and waterboarding is a gift to George Bush (and the Gestapo and Stalin's Secret Police) from the Catholic Church. Here's Kirsch's description of waterboarding from his book (p.4):

"Among the first and favorite forms of torture used by medieval inquisitors was the so-called ordeal by water, that is, pouring water down a victim’s throat to simulate the sensation of drowning and thereby extract a confession. As far as the Inquisition was concerned, the ordeal by water was an ideal method of interrogation: it required only a bucket of water and a funnel, it left no telltale marks and no bloody mess to clean up, and yet it produced such agony and terror that the victim would readily tell the torturer whatever he wanted to hear. That’s why the ordeal was favored not only by the medieval inquisitors but also by their successors in the Gestapo and the Soviet secret police. And the same form of torture is still in use today, although we are asked by its modern users and defenders to call it 'waterboarding.'"

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

35. Comment #369426 by Roger Stanyard on April 24, 2009 at 4:03 am

ColdFusion Lazarus asks

The lack of easily obtained evidence does not neccessarily mean that torture hasn't been useful to a "civilised" society in the past.

Oh. So there is no evidence that it has worked since 9/11?

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

36. Comment #369432 by ColdFusionLazarus on April 24, 2009 at 4:25 am

Roger, I personally have no evidence that torture has worked.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

37. Comment #369436 by Nyarlat on April 24, 2009 at 4:42 am

Comment #369359 by quantum_flux on April 24, 2009 at 12:13 am

Do you know that you qualify torture as a usable method?
Then you are no better then a Taliban. Disgusting!

Even Fox News "Judge Neapolitanos Freedom Watch" is disgusted by having a human being waterboarded more then 100 times.
They even think it wise to put those responsible in front of a court.

Other Comments by Nyarlat

38. Comment #369438 by ina.j on April 24, 2009 at 4:49 am

Setting the moral dilema - should torture be permitted for saving people - it does not work.

steveroot pasted this link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103421778

Col. Kleinman seems to hold enough qualification and experience to be considered an expert on this question.

Other Comments by ina.j

39. Comment #369441 by supernorbert on April 24, 2009 at 4:58 am

Comment #369389 by gcdavis wrote:

I guess most of us would agree that State sanctioned torture cannot be condoned in a civilised society; however every State has probably used some form of torture covertly. The ends justify the means argument could have some merit. If prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks had been obtained by torture and that had resulted in the perpetrators being arrested before they had a chance to act who here would say that it was a morally superior act to let 4000 people die?

The argument that torture probably does not result in reliable information is confounded in a situation like that described above when the ends did justify the means.

The situation you described above is fictive like they always are when someone trys to justify torture. I've you would have the bad nineeleven terrorist in your custody right before nine eleven has happened and you would take into account to torture him you would allready now the important stuff. Your idea torturing a guy without having a clue about the information you will get doesn't make any sense. How do you pick the person to torture in the first place?

The information obtained form torture is not valuable. The victims tell the interrogator that they have merried the devil if he wants to hear this.Your arguments were rejected several centuries ago.

recommanded reading: "Cautio Criminalis" by Friedrich Spee, 1631

Other Comments by supernorbert

40. Comment #369443 by epeeist on April 24, 2009 at 5:00 am

Comment #369438 by ina.j:

Setting the moral dilema - should torture be permitted for saving people - it does not work.

This has been noted by others - http://www.crimetheory.com/Archive/Beccaria/Beccaria16.htm

Other Comments by epeeist

41. Comment #369445 by Brian English on April 24, 2009 at 5:05 am

Torture me, I'll say whatever the fuck you like. I can handle pain, but there's a limit. All you get when you torture someone is an answer that the torturee thinks will quell the suffering. Sure there are freaks who can endure incredible pain, but then they'll die before they tell you the truth. Either way, you'll never know if you're getting a true statement or just a statement of a desparate person.

Other Comments by Brian English

42. Comment #369448 by Ignorant Amos on April 24, 2009 at 5:10 am

Vengeance or revenge are human traits I don't believe exist anywhere else in the animal world.

This whole subject is more complex than we are all making it out to be. It is just not a case of black and white, right and wrong, it runs a lot deeper. At what point is another persons suffering acceptable£ Do we think that Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin should have suffered before shuffling off, albeit the holy rollers believe they are suffering now.

Take then the service man who has just watched his pal being blown to pieces or the mother whos baby girl that has been raped and butchered by a paedo....would they be entitled to have the culprit do a bit of suffering£ Not just incarceration may I add.

Generally speaking, the results of torture can have positive results, but they are minimal on the grand scale of things and negligable compared with the adverse effects as a result of using this type of method for intelligence gathering.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

43. Comment #369450 by phatbat on April 24, 2009 at 5:14 am

I have a friend called Jack Bauer who used to work in the US counter terrorist unit. He has used torture on numerous occasions to extract vital information from people who were definately dodgy. He has been proven right every time, as they have given the information that led to the interception of perpetrators about to carry out nuclear strikes, chemical attacks, assasinations and much more. Usually he only got there within seconds of it being too late, but still he is given a hard time by elements of the US government. I ask you, why do they not learn from the numerous times it has definitely worked.

They made a documentary about Jack's exploits, but i forget what it's called.

It reminds me of that famous medical examiner Quincy who practiced in the states during the 70's, he would always get a hunch very early on during a medical examination of a dead person, as to what had happened to them, and every time he would be correct, but everytime he announced his suspicions, he would be told he was just being silly and that it was "an open and shut case." No body ever listened.

;)

Other Comments by phatbat

44. Comment #369451 by Brian English on April 24, 2009 at 5:14 am

Generally speaking, the results of torture can have positive results, but they are minimal on the grand scale of things and negligable compared with the adverse effects as a result of using this type of method for intelligence gathering.

When you dive into the shit to prove it's shit, all you do is dive into the shit. You don't rise by digging. If our freedoms are worth anything, then we should die protecting them first, not torture others to forfeit them (our freedoms).

Shit, I'm meant to be lurking! Apologies, too much beer. Over and out! :)

Other Comments by Brian English

45. Comment #369453 by dfnewburry on April 24, 2009 at 5:22 am

The only thing that will be gained by opening this can of worms will be the Democrats finally getting some blame for what they approved .
If Obama shuts this down then you know he is more Democrat than President .

Other Comments by dfnewburry

46. Comment #369454 by CaptainMandate on April 24, 2009 at 5:25 am

It reminds me of that famous medical examiner Quincy who practiced in the states during the 70's, he would always get a hunch very early on during a medical examination of a dead person, as to what had happened to them, and every time he would be correct, but everytime he announced his suspicions, he would be told he was just being silly and that it was "an open and shut case." No body ever listened.

another important lesson from studies of Quincy is that when people did not accept his hypothisis, he would get very angry. we must remember that if people don't agree, getting angry will always prove you right in the end.

It's also worth remembering from these studies that being an angry, middle-aged pathologist who's somewhat ugly and a little overweight is a bit of a turn-on for the ladies

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

47. Comment #369456 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on April 24, 2009 at 5:27 am

Sciros> The Faux News crowd... I believe specifically Hannity and Beck, but not positive on that, are the ones downplaying the severity of waterboarding. I used scare quotes as opposed to making a direct quotation, and should have said so in the first place.

The issue with extracting information with torture, as is being discussed above, is not that you don't get info, it's that you can't be sure you aren't getting false info just so you'll stop torturing them (i.e. you have the wrong guy and get a BS story to make it end). From my understanding, this goes for so called truth serums as well, because people under their influence have a difficult time telling fantasy from reality (they're hallucinogens on top of sedatives). A couple minutes of googling backs this, so I'm not bothering to post the sources.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

48. Comment #369458 by supernorbert on April 24, 2009 at 5:30 am

phatbat wrote:

He has been proven right every time, as they have given the information that led to the interception of perpetrators about to carry out nuclear strikes, chemical attacks, assasinations and much more. Usually he only got there within seconds of it being too late...

Nobody can ever give a real provable example of that kind of stuff. What a pitty.

Other Comments by supernorbert

49. Comment #369459 by Diogenes of Sinope on April 24, 2009 at 5:35 am

Either way, you'll never know if you're getting a true statement or just a statement of a desparate person.

Surely it would be fairly easy for a professional/determined torturer to force contradictory statements from the torturee, and from there it's a short step to uncovering the wanted information by a selective application of pain and release.

Of course, most torture inflicted (even by the USA, I speculate) isn't done so with the primary motive of extracting information, but rather humiliation, revenge etc.

Other Comments by Diogenes of Sinope

50. Comment #369461 by Ignorant Amos on April 24, 2009 at 5:40 am

Comment #369451 by Brian English

You are quite right of course. My experiences were all as a result of training to cope with being captured by those that did not subscribe to the Geneva convention. The training, as you might understand, has to be as real as is safely possible, still a fair amount of risk, but hey, thats what I signed up for right. We cannot allow our standards to be set by the those at the lowest level, if we want dive in and stand in the pool of shite we make for ourselves, by doing so, we had better make sure the next one in doesn't make waves.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

Reload Comments | Back to Top