Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 159 posts

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#21

Post by Nononce »

SilasX wrote: post #14
klausvanvinkle wrote: post #11

Whether torture is right/wrong good/bad boils down very simply. First, let's assume that torture works (i.e. it gives us the answers we want). If we assume it doesn't work then there's no point in torture or this debate. There will always be people who claim that torture works, so let's just assume it does indeed work excellently and 100% of the time. Second, assume that many innocent people are falsely accused and c…

I'm not okay with innocent family members being imprisoned. Therefore, no one should be imprisoned ever.

Based on your statement, the correct conclusion would be that no /innocent/ person should be imprisoned, ever. (To which I agree).

Torture, like drone murders, false convictions, does and will continue to effect many, many innocent people. It's a matter of moral; is it acceptable to to torture/kill innocent people to accomplish an object or not.

Personally, I cannot for the life of me justify torture. Torture, unlike ending someone's life, is something the victim will have to live through, and possible, with, for the rest of his life.

It's disgusting to do this to any living thing, let alone a human being.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#22

Post by typingdot »

klausvanvinkle wrote: post #13
chroma wrote: post #10

I think torture should be illegal and I think the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used at Guantanamo are abhorrent. But I also think there are real-world scenarios in which torture is not only moral, but where it would be immoral not to torture. This sounds absurd, but consider this real-life case given in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1]: A woman's car is stolen. Unknown to the thief, her child is slee…

Your argument doesn't work because the evidence pointing to the suspect could be false. Check out the Innocence Project.

It could be. But it could be true also. But just as you have stated, what if that child is your child? And for some reason you are certain that the man is indeed the thief? Would you use torture to shorten the information retrieval or not?

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

jleader wrote: post #4
TeMPOraL wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't torture supposed to first make you willing, and then have you reveal information without need of force? /s.

If torture makes you willing, doesn't that mean that when the torture starts, you're unwilling? And are you really arguing that torture doesn't involve the use of force?

I was just playing with the quoted definition. I even added a sarcasm tag!

:).

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#24

Post by nickff »

Nononce wrote: post #21
SilasX wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not okay with innocent family members being imprisoned. Therefore, no one should be imprisoned ever.

Based on your statement, the correct conclusion would be that no /innocent/ person should be imprisoned, ever. (To which I agree). Torture, like drone murders, false convictions, does and will continue to effect many, many innocent people. It's a matter of moral; is it acceptable to to torture/kill innocent people to accomplish an object or not. Personally, I cannot for the life of me justify torture. Torture, unlike…

Personally, I cannot for the life of me justify imprisonment. Imprisonment, unlike ending someone's life, is something the victim will have to live through, and possible[sic], with, for the rest of his life.

note: this is not a statement of my actual beliefs, but a foil to show the error of the post I am responding to.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#25

Post by angelbob »

rjtobin wrote: post #7

About 4 years ago I went to a talk given by the author of the book, the subject was along the same lines as the book: how torture is ineffective because it damages the subject's ability to recall information. Afterwards someone asked a question that a lot of us had been thinking: that in a lot of situations where torture might be used, the information being asked for is very well known to the subject, so unless serio…

It's not clear that torture makes it especially likely to prevent lying about information, though.

It'd be nice if he studied that instead of making us assume it, though :-P

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#26

Post by angelbob »

nickff wrote: post #17
vacri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other thing to remember in discussions around torture is that the "ticking bomb" situation simply doesn't happen, as reported by professional interrogators. This means that "ticking bomb" is an outlier scenario and the base moral discussions should not start from there.

It has actually happened in at least one case (, at least there was believed to be a 'ticking time bomb').[1] In addition, thought experiments are meant to shed light on the limits (if there are such limits) of certain moral principles, or problems with paradigms, much like reductio ad absurdum is a useful tool for reasoning.[2][3] This is not to say that the torture is justified in the case of a 'ticking time bomb',…

It is frequent that it's believed to happen. It's possible, but seems unlikely, that it has literally happened, torture has worked and then the US government has somehow not crowed about it.

They are looking very hard for scenarios to justify their use of torture, and the results they have revealed (e.g. from waterboarding Al Qaeda members) aren't inspiring, so far.

It appears, for instance, that waterboarding people many times (in a few cases, 100+ times) isn't enough to keep them from lying to you.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#27

Post by sirrocco »

littletimmy wrote: post #20

Why is this a topic of conversation? Even if torture worked it would not be ethical and the people doing it would be immoral.

If your daughter and wife were kidnapped by 2 people and you catch one of them, would you torture him to save them? What if you learned that they are being raped every day? Would you torture him then ?

What if you knew they do this every two weeks to another family, would you do it then?

What if you caught someone that has a habit of planting bombs in schools, would you do it then ?

I don't know if torture works or it doesn't, but it's certainly a topic worth having a conversation over.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#28

Post by angelbob »

chroma wrote: post #10

I think torture should be illegal and I think the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used at Guantanamo are abhorrent. But I also think there are real-world scenarios in which torture is not only moral, but where it would be immoral not to torture. This sounds absurd, but consider this real-life case given in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1]: A woman's car is stolen. Unknown to the thief, her child is slee…

Okay. Now do you trust the US Government to decide which ones are their one-off situations?

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#29

Post by SilasX »

Nononce wrote: post #21
SilasX wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not okay with innocent family members being imprisoned. Therefore, no one should be imprisoned ever.

Based on your statement, the correct conclusion would be that no /innocent/ person should be imprisoned, ever. (To which I agree). Torture, like drone murders, false convictions, does and will continue to effect many, many innocent people. It's a matter of moral; is it acceptable to to torture/kill innocent people to accomplish an object or not. Personally, I cannot for the life of me justify torture. Torture, unlike…

>Based on your statement, the correct conclusion would be that no /innocent/ person should be imprisoned, ever. (To which I agree).

But the OP was trying to extrapolate from there to "so no one should be tortuted (simply to avoid doing so to an innocent)", and that inference is what I was criticizing.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#30

Post by nickff »

angelbob wrote: post #26
nickff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has actually happened in at least one case (, at least there was believed to be a 'ticking time bomb').[1] In addition, thought experiments are meant to shed light on the limits (if there are such limits) of certain moral principles, or problems with paradigms, much like reductio ad absurdum is a useful tool for reasoning.[2][3] This is not to say that the torture is justified in the case of a 'ticking time bomb',…

It is frequent that it's believed to happen. It's possible, but seems unlikely, that it has literally happened, torture has worked and then the US government has somehow not crowed about it. They are looking very hard for scenarios to justify their use of torture, and the results they have revealed (e.g. from waterboarding Al Qaeda members) aren't inspiring, so far. It appears, for instance, that waterboarding people…

Whether the US government is 'good' at extracting information through torture is irrelevant to any discussion of the efficacy of torture, or its morality.

Some might argue that the US was simply too restrained in the pain and suffering it subjected the subjects to; others might argue that the US 'tortured hard enough', but it is not possible to achieve 'better' results. Similarly, there could be a discussion of whether it was morally permissible for the US government to torture.

Post reply on HN