Torture Doesn't Work

This New York Times article references one of my favorite writers on the subject, Dr. Darius Rejali of Reed College:

Darius Rejali, an associate professor of political science and the author of the book "Torture and Modernity: Self, Society and State in Modern Iran," said his studies show that torture is ineffective as a tool for gathering information. "My position is there is no empirical evidence to suggest that this works, at least in the way that people claim that it does in the war against terrorism," Mr. Rejali said.

Take the case of Mr. Murad, whom Mr. Dershowitz pointed to as proof that torture is a useful tool. Mr. Rejali said that it took more than a month to break Mr. Murad and extract information - a delay that would have made it impossible to head off an imminent threat.

Mr. Rejali said he has studied Algeria's violent struggle in the late 1950's for independence from France. He said he pored through the archives and found no evidence that the French were able to harvest a significant amount of valuable intelligence through their use of torture. He said he came to the same conclusion after studying the Nazis' use of torture throughout Europe.

"The Gestapo wasn't getting a whole hell of a lot when it tortured resistance people," he said.

Indeed, a study by Human Rights Watch found that torture of criminal suspects often produces inaccurate information. In 1999, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for the group, issued a report, "Confessions at Any Cost: Police Torture in Russia," which documented widespread use of torture among the Russian police.

The report quoted Boris Botvinnik, a university student in Moscow who confessed in 1996 to a murder and robbery after his vision was severely damaged from repeated bouts of near asphyxiation.

"I wanted to save what was left of me," Mr. Botvinnik said.

Mr. Lohman said, "That is the problem: If you torture me, I am going to tell you whatever you want to get you to stop.

Real life is not a Dirty Harry movie. No matter how badly one wants to believe it is. Torture is a crime, period, paragraph, end of discussion.

Comments

[Lets Sea]

No, this is all wrong. Torture does work, or it wouldn't have been used so much throughout the history. Anyway, the arguments offered in the above are at best disingenuous. First, idea is that information was not obtained timely, and therefore, it is suggested, "torture doesn't work. Well, late information is better than no information. That is was obtained somehow late (which does not follow from the original article, btw) is only relevant to this particular case and only suggests it may not *always* work in time; no more than that. The russian example is totally irrelevant to the topic because in that case, the police sought a confession, not information. Their torture did work as far as their goals. And it would work just as well if they were after real information. Indeed a tortured individual will do what is required: if an admission of guilt is required (even untruthful, as in the case of Botvinick) it'll be provided. If truthful information is required, then truthful information will be provided.

Perhaps not necessarily always quickly. Perhaps some people will be able to withstand torture. But statistically, on average, I'm sure torture works just fine. Though I understand the motivation of the proponents to eliminate torture, the "doesn't work" argument against torture is entirely fallacious.

[Randy Paul]

Indeed a tortured individual will do what is required: if an admission of guilt is required (even untruthful, as in the case of Botvinick) it'll be provided.

While the real perpetrators remain free.

If truthful information is required, then truthful information will be provided.

Not one scintilla of proof to support that statement.

I don't know if you're trolling for a response, but in any event you haven't proven anything. I'll defer to the experts and the professional interrogators, as opposed to someone who lacks even the courage to use a real name.

[Andy]

"Torture does work, or it wouldn't have been used so much throughout the history."

Hmmmm.

"Witchcraft is real, or so many witches wouldn't have been burned throughout [the?] history."

Leaving aside that torturers derive all kinds of satisfactions from torture besides obtaining truthful, relevant information. Just look at the Abu Ghraib photos.

[Andy]

"Torture does work, or it wouldn't have been used so much throughout the history."

Hmmmm.

"Witchcraft is real, or so many witches wouldn't have been burned throughout [the?] history."

Leaving aside that torturers derive all kinds of satisfactions from torture besides obtaining truthful, relevant information. Just look at the Abu Ghraib photos.

[Lily]

It would like to believe torture doesn't work just like I would like to believe terrorism couldn't work as an effective political tool. But, for the reasons "Lets Sea" states, I don't find Mr. Regali's argument too convincing.

Also, saying torture can provide useful information is not the same as "advocating" it or saying it doesn't have negatives that would outweigh its use.

[Randy Paul]

Lily,

Glittering generalities versus research? No empirical proof, just suppositions. I remain unconvinced.

[Lily]

I'm actually trying to address this issue without making suppositions. Empirical proof is not provided by Mr. Regali--interpreting what really happened and what usefulness of information was obtained based on those archives is bound to be difficult, subjective, and not necessarily universally applicable. Evidence isn't the same as proof so I remain unconvinced.

I'm not advocating torture.