Is torture truly effective?

There may be something for this already but whatever. So to start i just finished watching a movie, Zero Dark Thirty (for those who havnt seen it its a movie based on how they brought down Osama Bin Laden) and for a good bit of the beginning they're (CIA) torturing this guy for information of 9/11 and those behind it. He's beaten, water-boarded (if you dont know what that is, they put a rag/bag over someones face and pour water to sim. drowning), they even shove him in a box with a dog collar on his neck.
This isnt about the movie but peoples opinions behind the effectiveness and use of torture to get info from people. What do you believe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO- There is an issue that people will say whatever they can to get it to stop but it has proven to work. Its worked for thousands of years and it still works. I does have a moral impact on people knowing that this abuse is used but it has worked, even recently. Im American and, if i remember right, there was recently a thing in the news about people using it. A few years back during the Bush (Jr) administration sent a lot of people to Guantanamo, where the worst are generally sent. Bush even "changed" the Geneva laws to allow the use of torture on the terrorist prisoners to get closer to capturing Bin Laden but people eventually caught wind and got mad at him. They even used it on people to get closer to Saddam during the 90's and secretly used it during the Cold War, both the East and West actually used it and experimented with its uses. Most countries do "ban" the use of torture because of Geneva but remember what Bush did. So i do believe it's useful and effective.

It's effective.....it's truly effective because it's psychological and physical. You can interrogate a terrorist and they'll spit it all out just because you nearly drowned them in a bucket. They would somehow mislead you but that's someone's else's job to detail an analysis on what the subject said. But mostly, losing a few soldiers for a essential target is upmost up to the commander of your squad.

Torture in domestic states is more controversial because ethics. But it's not the public to decide since most people don't point out shotgun points.

What makes domestic and foreign torture different? Is it just because one happens to be citizens of your country and the other is not?

The reason torture is ineffective is because people will usually say anything to make the pain go away. This has been proven many times when people take plea bargains in court. Someone can be completely innocent and yet if you pressure them enough, draw it out long enough, ruin their reputation and spread it in the news. There is a point of no return.

On the ethical side, there are no exceptions, torture is wrong. Doesn't matter if it's your enemies. When you start treating people as less than human, you've already lost the war. This is exactly why ISIS exists in the first place. It is because of torture and the acts committed that allowed them to flourish. Do you honestly think that brutality even when used for "justice" good thing?

You torture people, you harm people, you kill people and others will not forget. Your enemies will get more numerous the more you do it. What bush did was terrible, it showed the intellect level of a high school bully. There was no common sense whatsoever.

Right or wrong. There is only partial time for in war if we're in your interpretation of ethics, within serious scenarios about war and combat. You'll get a different philosophy, ethics of the common public is all about innocence and good will. However, ethics is subjective as it is part of philosophy. Meaning it's not bad just because it is, bad and good is a perception meaning it's different for us. And no, not all pro torture are lusting for violence but the mentality which soldiers go through makes them intensely tough. I could watch murder videos and decapitations without losing a breath.

You don't have a glimpse in understanding what war is and how it's done. Even if you could be a soldier, your ideology about torture is too simplistic for the complexness of ethics. That's why secrecy and black operations are called so, it's because it's too harsh for people like you. It's better if we stay that way, social media and controversy can cause an endless road of debates but there's always disagreement and I accept that.

Oh, I wasn't really replying to Alpha but to the topic creator with my previous post so there's some mixup about how I replied to OP and replied to you.

Sorry to hear about the things the happened to you man. But i do agree with you, we created the UN and Genevea to stop the shit from happening and to prevent wars. However we have had to use it in the past to help stop a domino effect of worst things to come. I also agree that no person should have it done to them but extreme circumstances call for extreme action. Its like the old saying "sacrifice the few for the masses", i mean if we could get what we need from people by saying 'please' it would be nice, but you also have to keep in mind, what would they (anyone) do to us if they faced the same situation? It is brutality, most times unnecessary, but when shit goes to far, you have to go farther to stop it. Even if that means the brutality that follows is torture. Im not a soldier, i havnt had to face things on that level, and im not pulling the 'tough guy' act, but i do know people who have. War is hell, yes, ive seen what those guys go through every day. Shell shock, PTSD, night terrors, etc. The one guy, Jack, actually was tortured during his tour of Iraq back in '03. He told me the same thing you said, he wouldnt wish it upon anyone else, but he also said that if he had been in there place with their thoughts and ideas, he would have done the same thing. Im glad there are things like the UN and Genevea. But as i said, just because it says 'follow the rules' doesnt mean people will.

This is a well reasoned response. I do understand in extreme situations but I don't agree with it. The logic of shifting allegiance is pretty simple because people operate to 2 things. Reward and consequence. For example the reason people have been joining ISIS is because of 2 factors, fear of harm/death and what ISIS is offering is better than their current life. It's just as easy in war to show your enemy more compassion than they show themselves. The problem with the whole situation which is why the whole mention of Bush gets me enraged is that we didn't do that. Instead of treating their people with respect, we bombed civilians and treated them worse than cattle. You can see videos online where army contractors, white people running over civilians with vehicles and not stopping. They yell at them and tell each other how it would be better if they just shoot them all. There are people even here who entertain the thought and voice it of using nuclear weapons on them. And yet we wonder why they commit acts of terrorism on us. We don't stop to think the drone strikes are terror acts against them because it's for the "greater good of American interest".

If we maybe showed more discipline to our own troops and helped these people more, we wouldn't have this problem. At the end of the day the majority of people just want to live in freedom and peace. They don't want to harm or bother anyone. But when your neighbour's house is blow to pieces because he's a suspected terrorist killing his wife and kids as well. You can't be surprised when the number of enemies grows.

Which is why torture won't work not because you won't get the information you need but the consequences of that action. Any living person who cares for their friends and family would gladly go to war if you tortured one of them. This is the cycle of the logic the other posters have failed to mention.

I would want captured people treated decently. Given proper food and water, medical attention and a jail cell that would be at least comparable to what we give people here. A fair trial to be heard in court. Show people a just and accepting system and your enemies will quickly become your friends.

I'll shut myself, I'm sorry about that now. You are more experienced and you are definitely solid about it and I just came in it opinionated. I was being idiotic and shameful, you can edit your comment because no one has to know about things just because I encouraged you so. I shouldn't be so disrespectful anyways. I was in a view of violence was far beyond redemption and acceptance but I see.

Exactly. if we could do it peacefully it would be wonderful but in a harsh world you have to get harsh to. You said you had training too? Then i take it you served, and for that i thank you for keeping the rest of us back home safe.

One thing that can be said for sure is that the effectiveness of torture is exaggerated in film and television. I can't recall an instance where someone being tortured gave false information.

Seeing as I have very little experience with the subject of torture in the real world, I won't say much else. Just that it's a big grey area. I can imagine instances where torture could save lives and, ultimately, be for the greater good, but it just seems distasteful in my eyes. What's the point of getting some information or winning a war if history remembers you as a monster?

The question was whether it works or not- not if it is ethical.

So- yes- it does work. Everyone has a breaking point. If pain doesn't work, psychlogical and emotional stressors will.

I got lucky in that I never got deployed like some of my friends. I did a fitness co-op when I was younger when I was having my issues, and they saw that I was really good at understanding and helping others. Kind of a "natural born leader" thing, so I spent my 2 years working with disadvantaged kids who came to the camp. Kids with no family, mental illnesses, criminal records, etc. Not bad kids, but very misunderstood. It's my passion for helping people.

Which my whole thing against this subject.

But I see people wanting to pull it back to the effectiveness. I don't think it's effective because the media doesn't accurately portray it. I think that our intelligence people get the vast majority of the information from people without torture. Like I said, the reason it's not effective is because of the consequences of it's use.

Getting the information from someone doesn't mean the act is over. It's the butterfly effect in action.

What are your opinions on ISIS and the challenges that are faced? Their motives are partially different but they also encourage troops to oppose them even further. That torture and massacre is our entitlement but also ISIS entitlements.

ISIS society, they hold a partial amount of different people of different cultures. Self protection, disorder, power or a preference motive. Commitment on scare acts around the world questions our security and makes a psychological debut with nations around the world. But obviously not with the swiss.

Has ethical figures in declared what's to be done?

There has to be an understanding of what challenges faced and engage objectives. The objectives cannot ridicule of it's ethics and rights. That's something I like to hear from, unnecessary acts of torture for information can be achieved without torture. But is that sacrifice significant or can torture be changed to help us and also be within reach of ethics.

EDIT: I edited this a lot

I hope to not fine out if it is, that's for sure..

Is this directed at me or everyone? I'd definitely like to hear other people opinions on this as well.

I'm of 2 minds on this. We did technically cause this issue by removing a dictator that was keeping extremists at bay with his own forms of extreme. And while I did not like his actions there was "stability". So we have some responsibility in fixing this as we are the ones that caused part of it.

On the other hand, we need to be disconnected with this. The more we keep interfering with what is going on, the more chaotic things seem to become. Every drone strike for instance, is another person who joins ISIS out of hatred for us.

The complexity of the situation is that our enemies hate each other just as much as they hate us. We just happen to be the common enemy which is giving them a united front. If we were to remove ourselves from the situation, they would splinter and the infighting would likely cause them to wipe each other out. The issue with this though, is the civilians are constantly collateral, either by us or by them. So it's hard to make a solid stance against them.

What we should be doing before anything else is focusing on our domestic front. We have people who are joining these causes because they are disenfranchised with our current society. They've bought into the idea that our society is unfulfilling and that ISIS is offering some kind of meaning to them. I'm not sure how to exactly go about fixing this but I don't think passing spy bills to arrest people for facebook posts is the way to do it. But to really fix something like this would require the government to actually do something that it doesn't like to do, address the issue of poverty, education and health care. Typically healthy, educated, working individuals don't become terrorists. They have too much to loose for that.

For example, ISIS posts a lot on social media trying to attract people with false advertisement, etc. I'm not sure why we aren't doing the exact same thing but in a positive spin. There are over a billion muslims in the world, and not all of them support terrorism, many speak out against it but we don't give them nearly the amount of air time. So why don't we have social media campaigns about the positive stuff of islam, the preaching of mohommad for tolerance.

Such as:
“You cannot guide those you would like to but God guides those He wills. He has best knowledge of the guided.” (Holy Quran/28: 56)

Basically, don't force others to follow your religion, let them be guided by their own path.

“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8)

Basically, love thy neighbour if your neighbour isn't a asshole.

“We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed.” (Surat al-Ma’ida, 48)

What stood out to me in this quote is "So compete with each other in doing good". I think that speaks a lot of tolerance and love when you are seeing who is better are caring for another. This is a good form of competition.



These are only a few quotes, i'm not an expert at the quran, nor very well educated on the religion. My experience of islam extends about as far as "i have a few muslim friends".

no because they will jsut tell you what you want them to to get the pain to stop.

Normal English text:

Well back in my streets, we keep torturing women into pleasure and that was fantastic because the women really likes being tortured sex and getting information about something by torturing isn't really helpful. But at some point, it is effective due to the massive trauma pain gave to the people who suffered from the torture.

Gangsta English text:

Well back up in mah streets, we keep torturin dem hoes tha fuck into pleasure n' dat was dunkadelic cuz tha dem hoes straight-up likes bein tortured sex n' gettin shiznit bout suttin' by torturin aint straight-up helpful naaahhmean, biatch? But at some point, it is effectizzle cuz of tha massive trauma pain gave ta tha playas whoz ass suffered from tha torture.

In my opinion, in the right hands, torture is a necessary evil when no other devices are necessary. Of course, determining whose hands are in the right is iffy as hell.

However, I admit it's true sometimes that torture can do more wrong than good sometimes. For example, people innocent of crime (we know a lot of governments are corrupt). Torture can just lead people to spout whatever thing to save their skin, which ultimately would be useless for the torturing side.

I say it should be in the right hands when we're talking about counter-terrorism, when innocent lives are blatantly at stake. In war, on the other hand, I still think regulations toward POWs should be observed as it's largely simply two factions conflicting over interest.

Wrong. Dead wrong. For the n+1st time: Torture is ineffective, since it doesn't produce reliable results and contaminates the witness you're interrogating as they'll start to believe their own made up stories created under pressure to stop the hurt.



Exept it doesn't work. Not as a reliable interrogation method. Do you want to break someone? Torture will do that. Get useful intel? Torture is not reliable.



For the millionth time: Even if it wasn't ethically repulsive and wrong in a myriad ways, it's still not worth it. It's not effective.

Torture is indeed a barbaric and despicable act. It's an unjust crime tolerated merely by the excuse that it's committed in the hands of authority. However, all of us can only wish for a world where torture isn't present. But there will always be unchecked dictators and corrupt leaders in the world, and I just wish I never experience it. *knocks on wood*

What do you think, Flaser? Why do you yourself say it's never worth it, besides the obvious fact it's inhumane?