The line for torture

[Sam Or I]

Where do you personally draw the line for "torture" for interagation purposes? What methods are and are not considered torture to you?

[Singular Intellect]

Where do you personally draw the line for "torture" for interagation purposes?

If I were going to bother torturing anyone, you may was well go all out. The person I wanted information from wouldn't get touched. It would be their loved ones they'd be forced to watch get tortured instead, whereas torture would be infliction of pain and serious injury.

What methods are and are not considered torture to you?

At any point where serious pain is inflicted, physically or physcologically, I'd call that torture.

[Vendetta]

Since information obtained by torture is useless in any case, as the victim will say anything they think the captors want to hear, I would draw the line somewhere before the start.

[Cao Cao]

If psychological methods (not including things like brainwashing) are considered torture, I would draw the line at that.
Physical torture is only really useful to people with a predetermined agenda, which is useless for genuine interrogation.

[wolveraptor]

At any point where serious pain is inflicted, physically or physcologically, I'd call that torture.

That's pretty broad. I mean, even fining someone could fall under that, if it's a large enough sum to cause significant distress. I don't believe that falls under the common use of the word. There must be some sort of threshold that separates punishment and torture.

[Knife]

Well, one can make an argument that locking some one up in prison is torture, so you've got a large, broad spectrum to work with.

Inflicting pain to illicite information is pretty much useless, so I'd throw it out. Now phycological effects are even meaner than physical ones if you ask me, but I don't know the success rate of such things.

So; physical torture for info, no. Perhaps for deterent though. Phycological torture? I really don't know. Off the top of my head, making some asshole listen to Britney Spears doesn't really bug me much, but a total mind fuck type thing would probably.

[Napoleon the Clown]

At any point where serious pain is inflicted, physically or physcologically, I'd call that torture.

From what I've heard, getting handcuffed can be painful. Getting tasered or mace sure as hell is painful. Getting a ticket can bruise a non-neglegible percent of the population. I guess police torture more people per year than the kind folks at Guantanamo Bay.


IMO, torture begins at the point where pain (physical or otherwise) is being inflicted on the victim for no other point than to cause distress. Submission holds fail to fall under this because the intent is restraint. Of course, if the hold isn't being used in an actual fight or sparring match it can be torture. There's more to it, but I don't care to list the various cases where it is or isn't torture. It'd be a damn long list.

Torture is one of those shades of grey things, really. There are just too many variables for one single definition.

[Stark]

What kind of interrogation? Sorry, the police have rules and they better stick to them: assaulting or harming a suspect can ruin a case, and rightly so.

I imagine, however, you're talking about all this 'zomg terrorist' business. I hear rules and laws don't apply to that situation.

[Enforcer Talen]

I like psych games, myself. The Army Manual on Interrogation talks about raising or lowerign fear level, playing good cop bad cop, saying your friends are betraying you, your parents are ashamed of you, or you can help your family, etc.

Lots of games you can play. You just need to reinforce certain premade dispositions/loyalties - no need to take his fingers off with bolt cutters.

[Singular Intellect]

At any point where serious pain is inflicted, physically or physcologically, I'd call that torture.

From what I've heard, getting handcuffed can be painful.

Hence why I specified 'serious' pain. Not 'pain' that qualifies as merely being a whiny bitch.

Getting tasered or mace sure as hell is painful.

If either of those options was employed in an interrogation scenario, they'd certainly qualify as torture in my estimation.

Getting a ticket can bruise a non-neglegible percent of the population.

Then maybe those people should obey the law. I fail to see how any rational person can confuse lawful punishment intented to keep society safe with 'torture'.

I guess police torture more people per year than the kind folks at Guantanamo Bay.

Only if you insist on being obtuse and interpreting my comment outside of what should be an extremely obvious context.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well lets start this whole thing by very broadly (and quickly) categorizing torture into two categories: Psychological and Physical. Now obviously this ignores when the physical can cause psychological and vice versa btu I'm going to assume that anytime you reach the point that phgysical actions cause lasting psychological issues or vice versa then you've corssed the line.

Physical: If you are inflicting physical harm in the attempt to force a person to give information so that the harm can end then there really is no point. Let me in fact narrow this down even more, if you are going to use physical force then its just pontless. The captive (regardless of whom) is going to almost automatically start to block out parts of their mind simply to avoid dealing with the physical assualt (its one of the reasons we curl into the fetal position, our mind just stops working full throttle to mount a defense or evasion) and then you have an immensly less valuable source of information. Simply put any time that the intent is to create physical harm which the subject would surrender informaiton to have the harm stopped is going to be ineffective AND crosses the line. The line here is when it is no longer restraint but harm, if you have to body tackle the guy to keep him in his cell fine but you can't go slapping him around to get him to talk.

Psychological: Now this is a tricky category because we understand so litle about long term consequences of mental damage and how it starts etc. Honestly this is the category that most interrogaiton should fall into but doesn't because it takes time. You have to ask questions a thousand times, alter day/night cycles, offer regularity and positive reinforcement for quality information and irregularity when information is haphazard. The worry is when are you affecting too much a person's long term mental state. I think the line here has to be that when the psychological pressure manifests itself as lasting physical pain (not just a one day tummyache or bowel problmes because meal times changed) OR when the intent is to degrade the captive then it is torture. the latter is the tougher category because there has to be a bad cop playing against the good cop as there must be negative to go with positive reinforcement but the negative can't be greater than the positive.

[Napoleon the Clown]

At any point where serious pain is inflicted, physically or physcologically, I'd call that torture.

That's a pretty fucking vague definition, Bubble Boy. Clarification would have taken, what, all of a minute?

I fail to see how any rational person can confuse lawful punishment intented to keep society safe with 'torture'.

I'm gonna be a dick and point out the flaw with this: Going by that, it isn't torture to rip out someone's fingernails for committing some crime, so log as that's the punishment described by law.

[Singular Intellect]

At any point where serious pain is inflicted, physically or physcologically, I'd call that torture.

That's a pretty fucking vague definition, Bubble Boy. Clarification would have taken, what, all of a minute?

It's only 'vague' to someone who thinks tickets and handcuffs qualify as torture.

I fail to see how any rational person can confuse lawful punishment intented to keep society safe with 'torture'.

I'm gonna be a dick and point out the flaw with this: Going by that, it isn't torture to rip out someone's fingernails for committing some crime, so log as that's the punishment described by law.

If and when I assert any law enacted by any society is always fair and just, be sure to let me know.

All the examples you provided were inadaquate and had no relation to torture. The intentions and purposes behind any act have significant bearing on defining the act. That's why if someone shoots their lover in a heated arguement, it's called murder. But if someone shoots a violent criminal intent on murder, it's called self defensive. The act itself did not change, only the intent behind it.

Using one of your examples, that's why tazering a violent offender trying to attack a police officer is law enforcement, while tazoring someone tied up in a basement for kicks or information would be considered torture.

This isn't fucking rocket science.

[petesampras]

Since information obtained by torture is useless in any case, as the victim will say anything they think the captors want to hear, I would draw the line somewhere before the start.

Whilst I believe that torture has no place in a civilised society, I'm not sure that this is entirely true.

In terms of 'confessions' I'd agree, but in terms of intelligence information...

You (the torturers) could well have a situation where you know some information, but not all. You start by asking about stuff you do know. If they answer incorrectly, you apply whatever torture method you are using. Provided they are uncertain about what you do or do not know, and the torture you use is effective, they are going to be more inclined to answer correctly. You won't be able to trust the information 100%, but at the same time, it could be used to give you leads on things. Especially if you have multiple victims to corroberate what is said.

There are better reasons why torture is wrong. Such as the fact that it is a violation of basic human rights and devalues the society that endorses it.

[weemadando]

Since information obtained by torture is useless in any case, as the victim will say anything they think the captors want to hear, I would draw the line somewhere before the start.

Whilst I believe that torture has no place in a civilised society, I'm not sure that this is entirely true.

In terms of 'confessions' I'd agree, but in terms of intelligence information...

You (the torturers) could well have a situation where you know some information, but not all. You start by asking about stuff you do know. If they answer incorrectly, you apply whatever torture method you are using. Provided they are uncertain about what you do or do not know, and the torture you use is effective, they are going to be more inclined to answer correctly. You won't be able to trust the information 100%, but at the same time, it could be used to give you leads on things. Especially if you have multiple victims to corroberate what is said.

There are better reasons why torture is wrong. Such as the fact that it is a violation of basic human rights and devalues the society that endorses it.

Intelligence gained from torture is as useless as a confession. They will still give you any answer to any question you ask. They just want the pain to stop.

[Lord Poe]

Intelligence gained from torture is as useless as a confession. They will still give you any answer to any question you ask. They just want the pain to stop.

That's not universally true. If someone kidnapped your kid, and you tortured him to gain your child's location, you'd know soon enough if the intel was good or not.

[Singular Intellect]

Intelligence gained from torture is as useless as a confession. They will still give you any answer to any question you ask. They just want the pain to stop.

That's not universally true. If someone kidnapped your kid, and you tortured him to gain your child's location, you'd know soon enough if the intel was good or not.

In other words, if the information is verifiable and the victim knows it, then by the logic they "just want the pain to stop" they'll be more inclined to give that information. Which is typically the point for torture in that type of scenario.

[Starglider]

Intelligence gained from torture is as useless as a confession. They will still give you any answer to any question you ask. They just want the pain to stop.

Multiple posters keep repeating this fallacy like a chorus of broken records. Do you think professional interrogators don't know this? Do you think the CIA planners, who've spent countless billions researching the best ways to interrogate subjects, don't allow for this? Do you really think you know more about what people will say under torture than experts who train for it for years and then do it every day?

I am not defending the use of torture; generally the limited gains from using it in the very few truly justifiable situations are not worth the very serious dangers (and to a lesser extent, PR fallout) of compromising a blanket ban. But while amateurs may use it for the wrong reasons, experienced professional interrogators have a very good idea of when torture is likely to get them useful information and when it is likely to produce useless confabulation. Petesampras begins to outline this above but I'm sure intelligence agency training manuals around the world cover the subject in exquisite detail.