Comments on: Reason Talks Torture Scenarios http://donklephant.com/2006/12/19/reason-talks-torture-scenarios/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:25:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: William Crim http://donklephant.com/2006/12/19/reason-talks-torture-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-163382 William Crim Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:25:00 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/12/19/reason-talks-torture-scenarios/#comment-163382 The article makes a common mistake that obscures the torture debate. It assumes that a "confession" is the goal. When people speak of how unreliable torture is, they are often speaking about how unreliable a "confession obtained under torture is". If an interrogator is causing a prisoner physical or emotional distress in order to "admit you are a spy and capitalist collaborator", then it is obvious what answer the interrogator wants. However, if the question is "where is the bomb?" then that is not the same at all. A confession obtained under torture(or even aggressive interrogation) is irrelevant to the United States. Since confessions aren't broadcast for propaganda value, and secret military tribunals don't require them, confessions aren't the point of interrogations of terrorist suspects. Obtaining useful intelligence is the goal of the interrogations, and it has the benefit of being verifiable. Having said all that, I wholeheartedly agree that the administration has gone too far in authorizing interrogation tactics. Quite honestly, if we are ever in a "ticking timebomb" scenario, then we are already screwed. It can take days of intensive interrogation before a person "breaks" in a way that leaves them able to provide useful information. If a terrorist is caught, chances are there was intelligence that led them to be caught. Moderately competent police work should be able to trace the steps of a terrorist over the last 2-3 days in a western country. The article makes a common mistake that obscures the torture debate. It assumes that a “confession” is the goal. When people speak of how unreliable torture is, they are often speaking about how unreliable a “confession obtained under torture is”.

If an interrogator is causing a prisoner physical or emotional distress in order to “admit you are a spy and capitalist collaborator”, then it is obvious what answer the interrogator wants. However, if the question is “where is the bomb?” then that is not the same at all.

A confession obtained under torture(or even aggressive interrogation) is irrelevant to the United States. Since confessions aren’t broadcast for propaganda value, and secret military tribunals don’t require them, confessions aren’t the point of interrogations of terrorist suspects. Obtaining useful intelligence is the goal of the interrogations, and it has the benefit of being verifiable.

Having said all that, I wholeheartedly agree that the administration has gone too far in authorizing interrogation tactics. Quite honestly, if we are ever in a “ticking timebomb” scenario, then we are already screwed. It can take days of intensive interrogation before a person “breaks” in a way that leaves them able to provide useful information. If a terrorist is caught, chances are there was intelligence that led them to be caught. Moderately competent police work should be able to trace the steps of a terrorist over the last 2-3 days in a western country.

]]>