More Evidence That Torture Doesn't WorkFollow

You're reading about a different study, apparently. Please come back to this thread.



Are you a trained psychologist? Yes or no, no elaboration required.



Oh my GOD. You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.



Any assumption they make on the topic is infinitely more intelligent than any assumption you make.

I personally find that study quoted by the OP so retarded I'm not going to bother about it.

I strongly believe that as long as an individual is suspected of witholding information that can save or endanger many lives in the immediate future, torture will still be used as a last resort, likely secretly, whether we like it or not. I don't believe any amount of debate or public fury will change that fact. American lives (civilians or soldiers) will always come first, the morality of torture comes second in these extreme life-and-death circumstances.

The only way to resolve this issue, is probably to wait till some sort of reliable truth serum can be created. Then no one will have any reason to argue for torture. Human rights and invasion of privacy issues will be all the rage then.

Talk about willful blindness.

I'm talking about the quoted bit in the OP. Where the Psychologist in question states that interrogation techniques like waterboarding can cause memory loss, and that this would be "bad" for interrogation.

Of course the former is presumably backed up by data he's either generated or is working with. That's all great. It's the conclusion he reaches and which the article is about that is problematic. Nothing in that article explains *why* he believes that stress related memory loss would be bad for interrogation, and there's no evidence that he bothered to gather any data or do any research on that component of the issue.

It's the interpretation.



No.

Let me ask one:

Did the trained psychologist actually do any research to determine if the memory loss associated with stressful interrogations were helpful or harmful to the chances of getting useful information? yes or no?



No. I'm not. Why would I be? Moral questions aside (since the article wasn't about morals, but effectiveness of stress interrogations), isn't the objective to obtain useful information? If O'Mara is arguing that loss of memory would inhibit that objective, shouldn't he actually determine if that is true?

Is he a trained interrogator? If not, then how does he know what is useful and what isn't?



Doubtful. I find that most experts on any given subject are less intelligent when it comes to application of their own work than I am. But that might just be my massive ego speaking... ;)



In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the psychologist is leading his data in the direction he wants to go. He found that stress interrogations can cause memory lapses and has cooked this up as a reason why such interrogations just don't work. Look. While I'm sure it's possible that every person involved in these sorts of interrogations are just sadistic people who like to hurt people, at the end of the day the folks paying them are paying for results. There is zero motivation for them to continue having them use methods which don't produce results.

All the arguments that "Interrogation/torture isn't worth doing because you can't get good information" tend to fall flat against the very simple reality that every single intelligence agency in the world uses them to some degree. They wouldn't bother if it didn't work. We can debate how useful it is and judge that usefulness against the moral aspects of the specific methodology used, but it's kind of a non-argument to try to claim that it just doesn't work at all.


It's like an environmentalist trying to argue that we shouldn't use internal combustion engines, not because they cause pollution but because they just don't work. No matter how much you argue about the inefficiency of the engine, or the cost to obtain and refine the oil, and the wear on the parts, the heat, etc, it's all pretty quickly refuted by the simple fact that millions of people turn the keys in their ignitions and start their cars. Clearly, they do work. And not just do they work, but they work better than any alternative methodology at getting people from one place to another. Clearly too, we can assume that harsh interrogation techniques work. No one would bother using them if they didn't.


And that's a simple thing that is commonly missed by people with too much time in school and research labs, and not enough time in the real world.

Not what the (literal!) one minute summary of the study stated. It said that the information tortured wouldn't necessarily be true. That's it. That's all we know it said from this summary. Nothing more. Nothing less.



Holy sh*t. I can't believe you aren't joking.

Maybe someone will be benevolent enough to entertain your nonsense, but I'm not going to enable your childish behavior. Sorry.



Yeah, maybe that's it!



All the summary of the study (noticing a trend?) said was that there is no proof that these results are valid, because prisoners will tend to talk, even if it involves making sh*t up, just to get the torture to stop for a period of time.

EDIT: Because you're going to point this out, the summary did say that people tend to have memory loss after extreme stress. This is just a side note thrown in by those who summarized the study. The actual researcher is referenced as saying that some stress can actually facilitate memory recall. There is no direct statement that O'Mara said anything about memory loss among those being tortured.



Interrogation is not the same thing as torture. The study, according to the summary, was about torture and only torture. Stop changing the topic.



The entire, mostly ommitted, paragraph was one of the worst analogies you have ever come up with. This statement is one of the most illogical you have ever made. You know that too.



You're funny.



You clearly did not read the summary of the study.

But O’Mara says that’s not supported by scientific evidence. Harsh interrogation doesn’t motivate prisoners to tell the truth. It motivates them to talk. Because while they’re talking they’re not being waterboarded. But that doesn’t mean that what they say is true.



From the guy that is talking about a study he's never read as though he analyzed it front to back.

Do yourself a favor and stop replying.

Edited, Sep 21st 2009 10:14pm by CBD

Interrogator: Now's your last chance, terrorist scum! Tell me where your bomb factory is and when your group will strike next! Or I'll introduce you to a world of pain.
Terrorist: Hah! By Allah's will we will not stop till every last one of you American infidels lie rotting in your mass graves!
Interrogator: I've warned you!

An hour of torture later....

Interrogator: Now then, shall we continue? Tell me what I want to know and I can make all this pain go away.
Terrorist: <pant> <pant> Eh? What was the question?
Interrogator: What have we here? A smartass, huh? Seems like you haven't had enough.
Terrorist: Eh? what-?

Another hour of torture later....

Interrogator: Ready to talk now?
Terrorist: <pants> wait... wait... stop... My father is rich! He will pay you the ransom! Lots of money! Anything you want!
Interrogator: I don't want your money! Tell me where your bomb factory is!
Terrorist: .... I have a bomb factory?

One hour of torture....

Interrogator: Still feeling like a wise-***** Or are you gonna talk?
Terrorist: .....me no English.....

Another hour of torture....

Terrorist: Gooo gooo gaaa gaaa blaaaa <drools>
Interrogator: What is he doing?
Assistant: He appears to be doing baby talk, sir.
Interrogator: I know that! Why is he doing that?
Assistant: Sir, you didn't read that article quoted in the Alla forums, did you?
Interrogator: WTF?

You repeatedly misspell 'lose'. Just thought you might want to know.

Lol. Ok. The article about the study says that this is what the study says. Or did you fail to grasp the whole "They'd be just as effective just holding them without interrogation" bit at the end.

Read the whole article. Understand what it says.




Sigh. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that this entire section:



Is about what O'Mara's research shows. While we could speculate that the writer just inserted an additional paragraph in the middle based on information plucked from his imagination, the story certainly suggests that all three paragraphs are from the same body of work.

The use of the phrase "What's more..." is a pretty clear indication that this is additional information on the same subject from the same source. The previous paragraph was specifically about information from O'Mara's research. Baring the bizarre assumption of insertion, the flow of the article is such:


1. Some people say that Waterboarding compels people to speak.

2. O'Mara says that they'll just say anything, so it's not reliable.

3. O'Mara also says that high levels of stress will harm memory

4. O'Mara says that lower levels of stress can facilitate memory.

5. O'Mara concludes that using lower levels of stress will work just fine at getting the information flowing.


It was a classic flow of point, counterpoint, additional point, alternative solution, followed by conclusion. It's hard to imagine that you somehow decided that since his name wasn't specifically connected to a point he continued and then used to frame his conclusion that he must not have actually said it.


The rest of your post is rubbish.


Freaking learn to read. Wow!...

So if you believe that torture works as a preventative measure to gain information to stop terrorist attacks, does that mean you agree with the killing of Jean Charles de Menez as he could of been a terrorist?

I completely agree with the first reply Cat.

Torture only happens for two reasons

1: They get the info they want to hear despite whether it's true or not.

2: People are messed up and enjoy the act of torturing someone.


This is nothing new and has been happening for centuries.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2009 7:40am by Multidude

Best gbaji template ever.

Oy vey...

1: Torture is illegal in the USA...

2: Torture is morally reprehensible.

For you Varus, You have repeatedly said that you are a Christian. ANY Christian that condones torture is a hypocrite, and a lousy Christian to boot.

But then, we all knew that going in.