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

131–140 of 159 posts

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

#131

Post by jules »

scotty79 wrote: post #129
jules wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We make cost-benefit analyses all the time. With any military operation the collateral damage has to be weighed against the target. The fact that we freak out over torture yet kill innocent people in collateral damage is completely irrational. On the scale of harm, torture that leaves no physical harm is behind cutting off people's limbs, and that is far behind killing people. Now, torturing innocent people is worse…

Torture is harming with intent. Collateral damage is hurting by neglect. People pay attention to intent when judging.

The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse. The thing is that nobody even cares about that: arguments against drone strikes are virtually always about collateral damage of innocent people. Compare and contrast with the discussion about torture where people are not even willing to make a cost benefit analysis.

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

#132

Post by LordKano »

junto wrote: post #82
LordKano wrote: post #46

The idea that you cede the moral high ground when you use torture seems to have been forgotten. I don't care if it works. I grew up believing that we were "The Good Guys" and under no circumstance is it ever acceptable for the good guys to torture people. What made the Viet Cong so bad? They tortured people. What made the Japanese so bad? They tortured people. What made the Germans so bad? They tortured people. We sh…

Do you really believe that we didn't torture or enemies during WWII. History is written by the victors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_Wor... Similarly, we often believe that it was only the Soviets that took part in the rape of German women after the third Reich fell in 1945, but there are lots of evidence to suggest that all the allied forces participated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…

I'm not trying to minimize the excesses taken by some Allied troops but the big difference was that these excesses were just that, excesses and not policy as in the case of the Japanese forcing women into sexual slavery or giving children candy laced with Anthrax spores.

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

#133

Post by LordKano »

corin_ wrote: post #80
UlyssesSKrunk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that you cede the moral high ground when you use torture seems to have been forgotten. It wasn't forgotten, it's simply not true. I don't care if it works. I grew up believing that we were "The Good Guys" and under no circumstance is it ever acceptable for the good guys to torture people. Well of course, growing up you're a child who is incredibly naive and can't understand the complexities of the world eno…

Plenty of us still have that view as adults, actually.

Precisely. The view that anything my side does is OK because it's my side is the kind of nationalism that can turn ugly very quickly.

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

#134

Post by sean2 »

notahacker wrote: post #122
jules wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We make cost-benefit analyses all the time. With any military operation the collateral damage has to be weighed against the target. The fact that we freak out over torture yet kill innocent people in collateral damage is completely irrational. On the scale of harm, torture that leaves no physical harm is behind cutting off people's limbs, and that is far behind killing people. Now, torturing innocent people is worse…

Given that one of the most commonly discussed and unpleasant torture methods involves simulating the experience of drowning, I've often wondered why so few people consider inflicting that exact same experience on many enemy sailors by means of missile or torpedo to be even remotely bending the rules of engagement. Granted, the person that fires the fatal shot probably isn't an incorrigible sadist and may even be at i…

Hurting enemies while they're fighting, presumably to make them stop being able to hurt you or whomever you're protecting, has always been granted a special moral free pass.

But if there is no fight occurring, and the enemy is subdued and unable to cause harm, then the situation has changed a bit, into a greyer area.

I've also met a guy who has used water-boarding in the field, and he didn't seem like a sadist. He felt pretty bad about using it, though he thought it effective and necessary.

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

#136

Post by DennisP »

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.

From a quick google, it appears I misremembered somewhat. Torture evidence was used to build the case for war with Iraq, but it was about Iraq's relationship with Al Qaida, not the existence of WMDs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.ht...

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

#137

Post by anon4 »

nickff wrote: post #30
angelbob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wheth…

I feel the entire point is whether torture can work. Because if it cannot, there's no point to making people suffer. If we can get the information in some other way, then those should be tried instead. Bribing could work. Offering them a safe place to live for them and their family could work. A lot of things other than making them suffer could work.

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

#138

Post by kbutler »

Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it. (As opposed to man who says it should not be done.)

The "should" question boils down to, "How much harm can we morally inflict on some individual(s) in order to benefit others?"

Torture is the extreme end of the "harm" spectrum, but when we vote in favor of government benefits or taxes, we vote to harm some in order to benefit others.

Individuals and societies differ in how much harm is allowable and in how much benefit justifies a given amount or type of harm.

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

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

kbutler wrote: post #138

Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it. (As opposed to man who says it should not be done.) The "should" question boils down to, "How much harm can we morally inflict on some individual(s) in order to benefit others?" Torture is the extreme end of the "harm" spectrum, but when we vote in favor of government benefits or taxes, we vote to harm some in order to benefit others. Individuals and s…

> Torture is the extreme end of the "harm" spectrum, but when we vote in favor of government benefits or taxes

Or exclusive monopolies in the form of "property rights", for that matter. A big part of the some moral theories of benefits and taxation is that they should be aligned, so far as possible, to, taken into consideration with property rights, be a mitigator of the harms due to property rights, while reducing the benefits of those who benefit the most from those rights (without making a net harm for any, and leaving the whole system as net gain for everyone, because its not zero sum.)

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

#140

Post by scotty79 »

jules wrote: post #131
scotty79 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torture is harming with intent. Collateral damage is hurting by neglect. People pay attention to intent when judging.

The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse. The thing is that nobody even cares about that: arguments against drone strikes are virtually always about collateral damage of innocent people. Compare and contrast with the discussion about torture where people are not even willing to make a cost benefit analysis.

> The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse.

For you and me yes. For people who believe targets are "bad people" worth killing it's noble intent.

Post reply on HN