[debate] is torture good or bad?

[Gadi Evron]

Rob Enderle wrote:
> So I change my initial position.   I’ll argue torture is not evil, the 
> use of torture is evil and I agree it is also not only largely 
> ineffective it is likely counterproductive as well.  

Arguing the definition of 'evil' is one thing, claiming torture is 
counterproductive quite another.

Evil is a moral term which depends on your point of view. 
Counterproductive assumes facts not in evidence. You did not meet the 
burden of proof that make that claim.

I will steal my own original few paragraphs that started this thread, 
and build on them to make this point.

Torture is a very loaded subject this day and age. "Good" and "bad" are 
subjective terms. Are we speaking morally? Are we speaking results-wise?

There are three core issues here. Should torture be used? Is 
interrogation a process of torture? How much do we know of either?

Hypothetically, I can condone torture under extreme conditions if it 
actually works, and then when other techniques won't bring results in 
time. But what conditions are extreme and how do we define the relevant 
variables?

We may disagree on my statement above but we won't likely disagree that 
outside of anecdotal cases, torture is a bad idea, period. It definitely 
shouldn't the default technique.

The real shame of it is that there is no clear-cut research either way 
to state whether torture is helpful or harmful when used in interrogations.
There NEVER will be clear-cut research, but some research would be nice 
to stop cheap demagogy on both sides of the debate.

Torture is a matter of ethics, morality and law. We should stick to 
those. I'd go as far as dismiss the use of torture based on them alone. 
However, if we want to intelligently discuss it being useful or harmful 
in the technical (psychological) sense of getting information, we need 
to first meet a burden of proof:

	1. Which opinion on torture is true. We don't have that data
	   right now.
	2. That other techniques are not just as good if not by far, 	
	   better.

Language is often used in hyperbole, trying to hide actual meaning. 
Murder, rape, etc. are examples of loaded language much like 
"interrogation" has now become. Torture is not necessarily the right 
word to use and the line between interrogation and torture needs to be 
clearer. To simplify a complicated subject, interrogation is by 
questioning, torture is physical coercion.

By way of imperfect (and cold) analogy I can imagine extreme cases where 
killing an individual can be anywhere between "useful" to "necessary". 
Useful I'd kick out the door and necessary I'd look in the eye and 
likely kick out the door anyway due to logic, not to mention possibly 
being emotionally incapable to follow through. But should killing be the 
default route to solve our problems? No. Neither should torture.

Does the cost justify the means? Is the Star Trek saying of "The needs 
of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (or the one) relevant here? 
Perhaps.

As it stands today this debate is indeed one of morality, ethics and 
law. We can not argue effectiveness or lack there-of without data to 
back it up.

More in-depth, here are purely technical questions I'd like answered:

	1. Is torture effective? How so?
	2. Does torture hurt interrogations? How so?
	3. What interrogation techniques work, and why?
	4. Are non-coercive interrogation techniques less, more or as
	   efficient as torture?

The rest (such as a ban on torture, possible usage and timing) is left 
to ethics and philosophy, law and policy, and the individual person and 
extreme circumstances which may affect him or her.

Isn't public debate great? Especially on public policy?
There's also the issue of diplomacy here, but I am not an expert.

We must distinguish interrogation by means of questioning from torture.

For more information, Google is helpful. I personally really like the 
work done on the document "Educing Information" from 2006, it defines 
the subject matter well:

     Educing Information Interrogation: Science and Art
     Foundations for the Future
     Phase 1 Report
     Intelligence Science Board
     http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

The document is a good examination of historical, academic and practical 
issues on interrogation.

It makes a case that torture is probably unnecessary and suspected to be 
counter-productive for interrogation purposes. But this is not shown to 
be researched.

It is there to encourage research on interrogation techniques. The last 
research done is from the 1950s. The document also details where Police, 
the CIA and others get their current techniques.

The paper has a strong anti-torture stance and shows how torture came to 
be used in the first place, much due to (again) lack of research and 
fall-back to counter-torture techniques of the cold war being misused as 
interrogative techniques.

It calls for research and proper training in actual interrogation 
techniques.




-- 
Gadi Evron,
ge at linuxbox.org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
Security blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/