Torture Does Not Work

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:38:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The usually clear headed Glenn Greenwald misses the boat in his argument on the question of whether torture "works:"

It is sometimes the case that if you torture someone long and mercilessly enough, they will tell you something you want to know. Nobody has ever denied that. In terms of the tactical aspect of the torture debate, the point has always been -- as a consensus of interrogations professionals has repeatedly said -- that there are far more effective ways to extract the truth from someone than by torturing it out of them. The fact that one can point to an instance where torture produced the desired answer proves nothing about whether there were more effective ways of obtaining it.

(Emphasis supplied.) This passage completely misunderstands why torture does not work as an interrogation technique - to wit, because there are "desired answers," the person being tortured will supply them in order to end the torture, making the information garnered through torture unreliable. Is the "desired answer" truthful? Who can know under the circumstances of torture? It's not that there are "more effective ways" of obtaining information, it is that torture is a wholly ineffective way of obtaining information. For this reason, it does not work, EVER. More on the flip.

Yesterday I wrote about the narrative, as reported in the New York Times, that it was UNTRUTHFUL answers extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, presumably through torture 8 years ago, that were important strands of "information" that led to the killing of bin Laden.

The fact is there has never ever been reported (and there would surely have been if there were any) that any information garnered from torture in fact produced accurate "actionable intelligence." To the contrary, there are many reported instances of false information extracted through torture that led to disastrously bad actions by the United States (see the Iraq Debacle).

At least Greenwald did not engage in the Ivory Tower conceit that it is somehow beneath those of us who oppose torture, whether it is "effective" or not, to point out that in fact, torture is NOT effective.

Speaking for me only

< Pakistan's Official Statement on the Killing of Osama bin Laden | Torture Does Not Work: Part 2 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Torture Does Not Work | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:53:11 AM EST

I'm glad that you're pushing back on this because it seems that the GOP has been right out of the gate getting the message out that "torture does work".

: It was all they had (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:47:41 AM EST

They tortured a bunch of people to attempt to easily find Osama. Didn't work, no Osama, but there was so much to gain in Iraq so fugetaboutit. President Obama did get the man at the center of everything that had to do with our involvement in the two wars that Bush started. The First Mission has been Accomplished, after "they" closed down the unit in the CIA that was hunting for Bin Laden.
The only thing had done to get Osama that could possibly still have any connection was ALL THAT INTEL they got from all that torture. It is all they have.

What's completely forgotten (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:59:51 AM EST

in this debate is that the abolition of torture in the common law countries came about not because people thought torture was bad or immoral (after all, torture had remained in vogue under centuries of Christianity, and the death penalty and heinous prison conditions persisted even after torture was abolished), but because courts came to recognize that confessions extracted under torture had no evidentiary value, i.e. people said whatever the torturer wanted them to say in order to end the torture.

I think liberal commentators (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by lilburro on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:00:45 AM EST

are just hedging their bets (so to speak) re: torture. There's no point in being defensive like that when all of the evidence so far has pointed to torture having nothing to do with the operation against OBL. No point. It took almost 10 years to find bin Laden. There's no reason to be as defensive as some liberal commentators are at the moment. So yeah I agree with your approach to this BTD. Also I think it is important to underline that the "ticking time bomb" theory was hypothetically the rationale for using torture in the first place. The media aired that view. 24 was that view. Panetta has aired that view. Can we get a little reversal of CW over here? No?!

We can't ask the GOP if their policy does in fact amount to beating the sh*t out of radical Muslims just because they want to? No?

In other news, why the hell glenn Greenwald reads Andrew Sullivan is beyond me.

Agreed, but the defensiveness (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:41:18 AM EST

comes about from the apparent disregard for process so long as we get the desired outcome (Osama). And, do not confuse the issue with reason or facts (so, the ticking bomb had a long fuse, or, that interrogation of any kind might not have been decisive). Many Americans are jubilant that "we took him out", but keep all nasty parts of war sanitized (no gruesome photos, please--think of the children). Just support our neighbors troops and keep the veterans out of sight and make their needs subject to the budgetary axe.


Hedging our bets :) (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:24:17 AM EST

I guess it is hard not to for liberals because most of them never thought we'd get Bin Laden. It seems to me that we soothed ourselves in different ways, absorbed ourselves in various discussions facing that reality. It was better to let him just go...sigh...we have lost so much torturing everyone anyhow. Then one night we discover that we got him, we are strong, we are competent when facing a danger and an enemy now....maybe torture does work a little bit :)

Intel works, it is hard work. It seldom yeilds instant results, but it has a chance of working and torture doesn't.


: Lots of members of the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by jeffinalabama on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:30:51 AM EST

101st Keyboard Brigade, chickenhawk division, insist torture works.
After they've put their d*cks in the dirt and seen what the adversary does after known or rumored torture, let those bloviating chickens spend a tour, then get back to me. Not a week in an enhanced security area, but a year providing that enhanced security.

: Here's what did work (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by lilburro on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:35:18 AM EST

Obama's policy.
Here's what didn't work
Bush's policy.
If we want to talk about what worked, let's talk about that. And also the fact that Faux News etc. apparently works, as 60% of American teenagers believe torture is sometimes acceptable. Amazing.
Gah. Just ranting. I agree with your comment.

Can you imagine (none / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:14:02 AM EST

if Obama had gone ahead with his plans to close Gitmo and Osama was killed, what the message would be? I'm sure that the GOP would still be shopping the "torture is good" line but it would be a lot less effective than it has been.


Me too (none / 0) (#36)
by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:58:01 AM EST

... "beyond" that is, this

why the hell glenn Greenwald reads Andrew Sullivan is beyond me.

And I was very disappointed reading Greenwald's post today. Torture is never, ever acceptable. Period! But maybe I've been "prejudiced" (by my own opinion) when reading him, because I had the impression that he was of that same mindset. Very disappointing.


Great point BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Mike Pridmore on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:03:14 AM EST

I would only add this link. Two points made here. First, torture does not work. Second, it is not only counterproductive for intel gathering, but also aids one's enemies in recruitment.

And, third, it hurts our efforts (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:02:38 PM EST

...to get help from Muslims and others across the globe.

Who would turn in their friend, co-worker or relative if they believed that person would be tortured?

Being the good guys means gaining the trust of moderates everywhere. If we turn into the bad guys, just who in the Arab or Muslim world will help us?

Terrorism will be beaten when moderate Muslims refuse to accept it.....


And assassinations do not work (none / 0) (#21)
by Towanda on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:21:29 AM EST

either, for the same reasons.


: Depends what you mean (none / 0) (#34)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:38:14 AM EST

by 'work'. Assassinations do work given that the purpose of assassination is to kill someone and rendering them incapable of any further action. It's not about eliciting information or making people love us.
As for additional recruiting, that all depends on who is assassinated and the effect it has. I find it hard to believe that killing bin Laden will make more people hate the USA and more willing to take up arms against the USA than before he was killed.

The only thing torture (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Anne on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:28:45 AM EST

incontrovertibly does is make clear that the one doing the torturing has all the power and the one who is being tortured has none.

It also tells the world that power is more important than justice, and it creates more enemies.

It turns democracy on its head (I know the argument is that the military is not a democracy, but it serves one, and its actions in opposition to democratic principles inevitably undermine that democracy).

It's wrong.

Through the looking glass moment ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Robot Porter on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:49:21 AM EST

the first time I saw otherwise seemingly intelligent people advocating for torture on a mainstream television news program.

It was one of those lessons demonstrating how quickly a society can change. It was one of the scariest parts of the Bush era.

And the fact we're still debating this point proves the Bush era hasn't ended. If you needed more proof. Because, frankly, the proof is legion that the Bush era hasn't ended.

Come on, Jack Bauer proved torture works (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:41:00 AM EST

And, KSM had to be waterboarded--it was a ticking time bomb scenario.....

As conservatives will argue, that ticking time bomb just had a long fuse of years....There was no time for using the conventional, proven expertise of the FBI.

: And not only (none / 0) (#40)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:44:56 AM EST

was the fuse long but it went backward in time! to Sept 11, 2001 when the bin Laden bomb actually went off.

Panetta (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:43:52 AM EST

said some weird stuff about how information was obtained from inmates who had been waterboarded.....leaving out what info and when obtained.

I know he is a shoo-in for Secretary of Defense, but somebody should ask him about torture and waterboarding. Ditto times ten for Petraeus in his confirmation hearings for CIA Director.

Rumsfeld's quote (none / 0) (#5)
by Julene on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:38:44 AM EST

"The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone."

I think it's important to go with what the man who was in charge says. We didn't waterboard to get information. So why did we?

Maybe he's just saying (none / 0) (#8)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:46:42 AM EST

that waterboarding was only a CIA technique.


That's exactly what he's saying (none / 0) (#19)
by Slado on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:19:13 AM EST

We used "torture" techniques for a specific amount of time to break a specific group of people. It was done by the CIA at these black sites and then to a small degree in Cuba.

This whole debate is stupid IMHO. Why are we re-arguing this? Didn't liberals already win this debate. Whatever we did we don't do it anymore.

What a waste of time.

What we did worked. We broke key figures in Al Qaeda and they coughed up information that eventually led to the capture of OBL. Was it the only reason? No. Was it one of the reasons? Yes.

Get over it and move on.

: Nine years later? (none / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:27:06 AM EST

And let's not forget that the CIA split down the middle on this and some people packed up and left because they already knew that torture doesn't work...it just phucks everything up really bad. The CIA had an inner war about torture, and only the looney loons remained....and in the end they got nuthin!

: How do you know this? (none / 0) (#45)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:06:29 PM EST

How do you know that torture "broke" al Qaeda figures?
No doubt, torture destroyed them in certain ways, but how can you know it led to actionable intelligence....Is this just common sense or gut instinct at work. Where's the proof?
It is not over as Republicans are saying it works.....That is the predicate for doing it again even if the practice has been (temporarily) suspended.

Tell Fox & Friends... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:44:55 AM EST

the shiny happy Gretchen, Steve, and Brian basically gave the waterboard a medal of freedom for leading the Seals to Osama's crib on this morning's propaganda hour.

It's not an Ivory Tower conceit (none / 0) (#10)
by Demi Moaned on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:47:53 AM EST

And the objection is not that it is beneath us.

Your loudness of assertion notwithstanding, it's just not an established fact that torture is incapable of eliciting accurate, useful information under any circumstances.

So what happens when someone comes out with incontrovertible instances of occasions of torture producing useful information? Do we then have to revise our opinion about the admissibility of torture? Or do we shift our argument?

It's one thing to ridicule and condemn the ham-handed and indiscriminate use of torture that doesn't even produce accurate results. But it's another thing to imply that you would approve if they did get accurate results.

There's no question that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by observed on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:09:39 AM EST

if torture worked, it would be part of the law enforcement apparatus in some "civilized" countries.
Alan Dershowitz believes torture works and should be legal.


If torture worked (none / 0) (#50)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:37:43 PM EST

it would be part of the judicial system of every country on earth. The reason it is not is because it doesn't work.


: Of course. I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by observed on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:09:23 PM EST

This discussion reminds me of a frighteningly amoral post by Volokh several years ago, in which he posited that if there really WERE witches, then burning them would be appropriate.
Well, people BELIEVED there were witches, and they burned them. In my opinion, Volokh was condoning those acts.

Dershowitz has talked about a torture (none / 0) (#51)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:44:30 PM EST

warrante being issued by the President in ticking time bomb scenrious....

But he has lost his mind and his soul on this issue....

He doesn't have any evidence that it works, either.


But what if (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:14:45 AM EST

torture was 98% effective? What would your moral argument be then? It's still wrong even though it's incredibly useful and saves lives? Yes you could make that argument but it would fail, in the same way that the argument that wars are morally wrong hasn't done a thing to end wars. Enough people find them so useful that they persist in spite of their frequent failures.

As I pointed out above, the reason torture was abolished in the west is because it was found to be ineffective. Ineffective doesn't mean 100% ineffective, but ineffective enough that courts began to reject confessions obtained under torture and governments had no choice but to drop its use. It was only afterward that torture came to be seen as immoral.

People came to see torture as immoral because it was the application of violence to another person for no good reason, i.e. it didn't produce valuable evidence. The argument that torture should never be used because it is ineffective is, in my view, the stronger argument, and is in fact the basis for arguing that it is immoral.


When pigs fly out of your butt (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:54:04 AM EST

I'll address it at that time. This - "So what happens when someone comes out with incontrovertible instances of occasions of torture producing useful information?"

You do understand that you do not need to avoid making the legal and moral arguments against torture in order to state it does not work right?


: Of course (none / 0) (#15)
by Demi Moaned on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:07:57 AM EST

It's all a matter of how you tie them together. I guess I would put it something like:

You degrade and criminalize yourself by using these abhorrent methods and you can't even provide the weak justification that you got accurate results!

Re: (none / 0) (#13)
by lilburro on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:01:09 AM EST

So what happens when someone comes out with incontrovertible instances of occasions of torture producing useful information?

I don't know. Because nobody has. And we've never had a forum to discuss it. Because, I dunno, Post-Partisan Unity does not allow it? Leave the past in the past because it never interferes with the future or the present, ever, obviously?

I do have evidence that torture doesn't work - Zubaydah. Bush never getting bin Laden. Etc.


Americans are primarily pragmatic (none / 0) (#46)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:08:15 PM EST

To show torture doesn't work is the quickest, most effective way of winning the argument....


As I replied at Orange (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:51:00 AM EST

It is dangerous. It gave us intel that wasn't true but that leaders acted on. It is many things; it doesn't work, it is beneath us, and it is dangerous to everyone...not just the person being tortured and those doing it that are having their soul destroyed.

It did work (none / 0) (#20)
by Slado on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:20:49 AM EST

Sorry. But it did.

Was it right? Who knows. But to argue it didn't work makes you look silly.

Doesn't matter anymore. We don't do it anymore.

Time for both sides to relinquish this talking point and move on.


The reason to keep talking about (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Towanda on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:24:05 AM EST

torture and when it does not work is to remind us to not resort to such behaviors again.

Silence about mistakes made in the past is what really does not work.


Fair enough (none / 0) (#26)
by Slado on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:26:50 AM EST

However what we did and if it was "torture" depends on your partisan affiliation.

I've always maintained that the whole debate was silly when you consider all the other things we're doing in the name of fighting terror.

Either way we stopped doing "torture". We stopped even before the whole discussion came up.

We still do lots of things that to me would be worse then "torture" but nobody seems to mind that.

Silly debate in my view.


: Just curious -- when you say this: (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by shoephone on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:02:03 PM EST

"We still do lots of things that to me would be worse then "torture" but nobody seems to mind that."
What things are you referring to that are "worse than 'torture'"? Because, frankly, the fact that you put the word TORTURE in quotes, gives you away as someone who cannot be taken seriously on this issue.

: Relativism (none / 0) (#29)
by Towanda on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:29:10 AM EST

is too easy a way to continue to dismiss debate, as are your other, more obvious dismissive tactics.

Intel works (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:30:45 AM EST

Torture does not work, and phucks all of your real hard earned intel up too when you get told fictions to make the torture stop. Then you have to backtrack and prove what is a fiction and what isn't. It's crap. Torture is utter crap that yeilds utter crap and a whole destructive crapfest that negates real intel until it can proven what is the correct intel again. It sucks, it's stupid, and only idiots consider that it has a chance of providing anything useful.


Prove it (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:10:22 PM EST

Don't just repeat a slogan....

Show me the evidence.....With cites.....

Petraeus disagrees with you.....Life-long counter-terrorism interrogators disagree with you.

Where is your evidence? I have seen none.....


Prove it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:13:00 PM EST

Prove it (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:13:42 PM EST

Oy, how did this happen? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:08:31 PM EST

: I'm laughing (5.00 / 6) (#54)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 04, 2011 at 01:16:43 PM EST

at the phrase "Don't just repeat a slogan...." appearing 3 times.

I'm with Glenn (none / 0) (#17)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:12:06 AM EST

The issue isn't black and white. Intricacies and subtleties exist that intellectual honesty would force one to admit. I'll be bold and state that torture does apparently work sometimes. I am much more of a humanitarian than of most Democrats or Republicans in politics, (and most certainly more than either of the last 2 presidents), so I certainly don't feel any pleasure in saying so.

The assasination of Bin Laden was likely possible in part due to information obtained via torture....certainly via indefinite detention, which is a form of torture. We'll never know for sure because our White House has lied about everything surrounding this case.

The real discussion should be, what do we become when we use torture -- even in the most desperate situation? A country like ours that has Hiroshima and Nagasaki under its belt thinks we deserve to use torture even in a "24" case where it might save our own citizens? That is American Exceptionalism -- and bigotry -- at its finest.

Bin Laden is dead now and it was a dark period in our history, both from the standpoint of who attacked us and what we became subsequently because of it. The time has now passed. The pendulum should swing back to being the good guys -- not that we'll EVER be the good guys, just strive to be "gooder" guys.

The discussion should be, let's turn the page, let's right ourselves. We should say, torture may have worked but it's illegal and needs to stop.

Torture worked? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by lilburro on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:17:32 AM EST

Really? At least let them provide the evidence that it did, and that it was necessary. I've seen no indication that torture was necessary to get whomever (we still don't know) to cough up the names of people associated with Al-Qaeda. There's been no evidence that this figure (who, we still don't know) couldn't have been pressured to do the same in another way.

Why then would you assume torture "worked"?

If any Administration wants to flaunt international and domestic law and promote war crimes, it is IMO up to them to prove to us that it worked. I'm not doing it for them.


Blithe acceptance that torture works (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:49:47 AM EST

is not being responsible.....

To state such a thing, I would like to see some evidence, please.

How far has this Republican approach of gut level certainty in lieu of evidence actually travelled?


Exactly (none / 0) (#23)
by Slado on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:24:13 AM EST

Whether it worked or not or to how much of a degree depends on your side of the partisan divide during the whole torture debate.

But ask yourself this? Is Guantanamo still open? Are we still taking enemy combatants off to secret sites, holding them against their will, bombing them from the sky, assassinating them?

Yes.

Why? Because all of it works. All these tactics if you will work better or worse depending on who is doing them, where and who we are targeting.

Either way the specific issue of "torture" is over. This president and this government doesn't do it anymore.

Move on.


: no (none / 0) (#32)
by CST on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:34:35 AM EST

we don't do keep guantanamo open because it "works".
We do it because people are chicken$hit.

: It is a pretty big issue to move on from (none / 0) (#41)
by MKS on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:47:01 AM EST

(I always mess up with prepositions)
We used to have clarity: We did not torture and did not waterboard.
Now, we have Republicans supporting such....hopefully out of blind partisan support of Bush--the other possibility is much more disturbing to consider.

ineffective and degrading to the torturers (none / 0) (#25)
by souvarine on Wed May 04, 2011 at 10:24:58 AM EST

A NY Times article today quotes Bush administration officials touting the value of torture:

a chorus of Bush administration officials claimed vindication for their policy of "enhanced interrogation techniques" like waterboarding.
Among them was John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who wrote secret legal memorandums justifying brutal interrogations. "President Obama can take credit, rightfully, for the success today," Mr. Yoo wrote Monday in National Review, "but he owes it to the tough decisions taken by the Bush administration."

They've slipped from the ticking time bomb to crediting torture for getting results a decade later. Torture seduces it's proponents and inevitably becomes the first recourse in every case because it gets quick results, though results with no strategic value. Torture justifies itself by forcing its victims to implicate themselves and others, regardless of the facts. Those quick results preclude achieving the objective of the torture, as Obama's NSC spokesman put it:

"The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. "It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there."

The years of work finding bin Laden did not begin, indeed could not begin, until the torturers were out of office.