Quote:
Originally Posted by Dread Knot
In the war on terrorism you often heard the argument framed as: "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture a suspect to find out where it is?"
Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time. It seems to me an interrogation subject in such a situation would be inclined to be a tougher nut to crack than average, because he only has to endure for a few hours to achieve what he would regard as a monumental success and maybe a ticket to paradise. His ultimate payoff. Unlike the kidnapper who motives were only monetary and since he's been caught he's never going to see his payoff at this point.
|
Only endure a few hours, you say. Serious...? Then you do not know what you are talking about when talking about torture.
Many years ago, I volunteered in an aid project for torture victims from the Balkans. They were shuttled my a doctor's initiative to several facilities in Germany and think Denmark. I save you the grim detials of some things I learned there, just this: that some of the troths I learned there broke a usually well-hidden corner in my soul, and that it was some of the toughest time IU ever spend on anything.
EVERYBODY has a breaking point. And that point is reached the earlier the more unscrupulous and unrestrained pain is inflicted on him.
"Just enduring a few hours"? You couldn't be more wrong.
People can hold out if they see a meaning in it. "He who has a Why to live for, bears almost every How", Viktor Frankl said (translated from the German), a survivor of the KZs and founder of the so-called Logotherapy. Take away that meaning from them, and they find it so much easier toi collapse early.
A bad guy wanting to play for time, sees a chance to do that when knowing that his lies buys him that time and gives him a timeout from the application of pain. So far you are right, then, it makes little sense to torture him if you cannot evaluate his answers relatively close in time to the situation he is in. Very short time, that is. However, if the xcase is about an informaiton nthat can be verified so quickly that the subject knows that he cannot buy himself any releif time when lying, the situaiton is a completely different one. Needless to say: that difference dramatically reduces the number of situations with circumstances where thus the use of torture could mean to make a difference (assuming that the severity of the case at stake justifies the consideration of torture, which - as I said - I would fall back to only in the fewest of cases. It should never be a routine tool from the ordinary tool box of fighting crime or terror or a war opponent.
However, realistically seen one always has to expect that torture will be used in eras of war and civil wars, on a great scale, and not just to win information, but even often to just wage war against the civil population. Which was the case on the Balkan. That is what at first I struggled to understand: that those people that had the core of their being removed from their souls - were no interrogated or asked questions, but just were tortured, and then released. No questions asked.
When you really think you can endure torture to win time, then you imply that the torturer knows limits and scruples. Talking about limited torture then. When the subject faces a torturer not knowing such scruples - then the universe around collapses for that poor thing.
Bäh. Very ugly and evil things we are speaking about. I stop it here.