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

111–120 of 159 posts

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

#111

Post by reddytowns »

sirrocco wrote: post #102
vacri wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hand them over to the police and let them deal with it - they're far better at interrogating people for information, and far better resourced for a rescue operation.

I was giving a couple of examples in reply to the "Why is this a topic of conversation?" question. It's not meant to be taken literally as a plan to save someone. I'm just saying that it's worth having a conversation over. PS: what's up with the downvotes in this thread ?

It's often used as a way for a person to shut someone up when they don't have an argument. Seriously, karma should really be called groupthink points.

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

#112

Post by arca_vorago »

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',…

Threatening to torture and actual torture are two very different things. Your first source doesnt back up the first claim you made.

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

#113

Post by arca_vorago »

vlehto wrote: post #105
harryf wrote: post #54

That torture doesn't work to extract information has been known anecdotally at least since the 2nd world war - read up on Hans Scharf - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff But tortute does work when your goal is oppressing large populations; instilling fear and control. This is the discussion the US ought to be having... what wa the real policy behind torture?

Yes. If CIA would actually worry about the terrorist, then the terrorists still free would be 1. concern. They are really hard to catch, no matter how you try. Now if you go torture route, you might get some information that is quickly getting dated. But you also validate the terrorist cause. And terrorists in hostage situations don't want to surrender, because they know they will be tortured. If you would treat capt…

I think you unknowingly answered the real question: what is the purpose of torture? Almost everyone here is assuming it is to extract information and save lives with that information, but I would venture to say that is not nearly as often the case as most would like to think.

If we look at the other possible reasons, some things make sense. One thing to keep in mind is that torture is rare. The majority who end up at places like Gitmo don't get tortured (treated badly, yes, but rarely tortured). The real people who get tortured are much more likely to be at a blacksite no one knows about.

There is an interesting pattern though, I have noticed, which is the turning of targets into double agents and releasing them back in the wild.

Now, another thing to remember is The Company started MKUltra a long time ago. They have surely highly improved the mental breakdown/buildup process since then. If you stop assuming the purpose of torture is to gather information, things will make much more sense.

Also, like you said: "you validate the terrorist cause". What a useful side effect for those who seem to be invested in destabilizing certain areas of the world...

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

#114

Post by arca_vorago »

notahacker wrote: post #109
DennisP wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not long before 9/11, a friend of mine went through SERE training. He said the main purpose of the torture techniques they used wasn't to gain information, but to make the captive say whatever the captors wished. Then all this torture stuff came up and lo and behold, they used those same techniques from SERE (at least, what's publicly known about them), and the "information" they came up with said there were WMDs in…

When and where was torture used to generate theories about WMD in Iraq? afaik it was based on the well established fact that Saddam Hussein had once possessed and used WMDs, cynicism about his stated destruction of them and circumstantial evidence that certain facilities might have still contained them.

I always remeber the line, " How did we know Saddam had wmd? Because we had the receipts!"

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

#115

Post by bluecalm »

weland wrote: post #101
bluecalm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most sane human beings would consider torture in situations where the information obtained could save many lives (for example during the war).

I hear this argument a lot. That situation is as unlikely as it gets. At least in my part of the world, torture is particularly discouraged as a means of gathering information during war. Not only are prisoners likely to confess anything that will make the pain stop, but the ones inflicting it are themselves unlikely to be able to tell when the one being tortured is telling the truth. Furthermore, even if he tells th…

I agree with your arguments but it seems to me you are arguing for different point: that torture is bad in almost all situations and is especially bad when applied systematically. I don't think anyone reasonable are going to contest that though.

My position is that I can imagine situations where I think torture is justified even though I see those situations as very unlikely to occur and even less likely to be judged correctly. I do agree that the history doesn't inspire optimism and that systemic torture use is a problem and it's a good battle to reduce it.

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

#116

Post by notahacker »

XorNot wrote: post #39
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…

I would argue your audience is failing to understand what torture is. Most people are deathly afraid of any pain. But they're also not agents/operatives/soldiers for their government. They're not at war with an enemy they think worth fighting and killing. So they don't have a particular strong desire to conceal information from anyone who threatens them. This means, in an actual scenario of torture interrogation, you…

But isn't inability to remember much because of pain/shock the point? That fragments of actual memories of places been and instructions given might be a little stronger than a torture subject's capacity to invent alternatives, or even recall why they were so keen not to give that information in the first place. Useless to establish guilt or complex plans, but quite possibly better than nothing for a few elusive details, assuming that "nothing" is what more acceptable interrogation techniques have yielded.

Of course, it's even easier for the subject to simply agree with the torturer if the torturer actually has a narrative they want agreed to, but in those case actually obtaining information was obviously never the reason for the torture in the first place...

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

#117

Post by vacri »

reddytowns wrote: post #111
sirrocco wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was giving a couple of examples in reply to the "Why is this a topic of conversation?" question. It's not meant to be taken literally as a plan to save someone. I'm just saying that it's worth having a conversation over. PS: what's up with the downvotes in this thread ?

It's often used as a way for a person to shut someone up when they don't have an argument. Seriously, karma should really be called groupthink points.

Downvotes can just mean 'I disagree'. It's stupid and wrong and confuses everyone new since it ghosts the comment, but it's the sanctioned action of HN since time immemorial. The argument has been had many times before, but it's acceptable HN behaviour. If you look in my profile, you'll see a screed against the moderation system that was written about four years ago...

Basically just suck it up and don't read too much into the "I disagree"s.

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

#118

Post by rbcgerard »

TheLogothete wrote: post #61
jdc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bad because it increases human suffering, and it's unfair to harm someone who can't fight back.

That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but let's say a terrorist is captured and you have to put a stop to his operation. His cell will kill a hundred or so people in the next month. You don't torture him and the bomb goes off killing 243 people. A year and a half later you capture another and you have to put a stop to his operation. What do you do?

thr more likely scenario would be: "...a [suspected] terrorist is captured and you have to put a stop to [an unkown but potential] operation. [a] cell [he is thought to be affiliated with may] kill a hundred or so people in the next month...."

My point is the chances that you know everything with certainty except x or y and all you need to do is torture this guy to find out x is alsmot never the case...are you ok with "we think this guy might know x, who we know is a bad guy, lets torture him to find out"

Let's for a second say it WAS the case, the proverbial ticking time bomb, do you propose tortureing innocents that may have tangential information that may prove useful but they are with holding I.e. Children, parents, siblings, friends?

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

#119

Post by e12e »

cm2187 wrote: post #74
dror wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the reason that it doesn't work. Imagine that your village has a 1000 people and someone is torturing you to find out "who is your cell leader." At first you are resisting, and so you name random people in the village. After you've named 50 people or more, you break and name the real person. The torturers though don't know that this is the real person, so they'll keep torturing you, and you'll just go through…

Usually you ask for verifyable information. CIA officers do not need to be reminded what a lie is.

I think the comments of the FBI revealed wrt. the CIA torture programs shows that CIA officers a) don't know how to interrogate people, and b) do need to be reminded what a lie is.

I agree that if what you want is some concrete information that the subject is reluctant to give up ("Where have you buried the guns I need in order to kill the rest of your family?") -- you could probably get at that via torture. I don't know if that would typically be the fastest or most reliable way to get that information (Consider, eg: Staging an escape, allowing the subject, helped by an under-cover agent, point you to said guns).

I think people get hung up on the "bomb plot theory" too much. My impression is that while such simple cases make for great TV, that's not the kind of real-world questions intelligence organizations really are concerned with. So if we say: "ok, use torture to save the children!" -- if that was taken at face value -- it means: "Disband most (all?) large-scale operations that allow torture today, such as the CIA programs."

I also think there's a bit of a hang-up on "effectiveness". If you're fighting an illegal war, kidnapping and killing people that are clearly innocent -- it's hard to accept an argument from "effectiveness". At least if there's no indication that atrocities would stop if you "won".

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

#120

Post by e12e »

TheLogothete wrote: post #61
jdc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bad because it increases human suffering, and it's unfair to harm someone who can't fight back.

That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but let's say a terrorist is captured and you have to put a stop to his operation. His cell will kill a hundred or so people in the next month. You don't torture him and the bomb goes off killing 243 people. A year and a half later you capture another and you have to put a stop to his operation. What do you do?

Ok, so by "terrorist" I assume you mean someone who's technically innocent, because you have no proof of a crime?

By "the bomb goes off killin 243 people", you invoke hindsight. Ok, so now we're talking about how to best prevent an attack that kills 243 (or so) people, given we have a suspect in custody.

You seem to imply the answer is that our best chance of preventing the first bomb was to torture the person we at the time couldn't know was a terrorist. But maybe the best way would be to sweep for parked abandoned cars?

You do clearly illustrate why if you don't have oversight, institutions dealing with violent crime etc are likely to degenerate.

Post reply on HN