At some point the burglars must have decided to rob the victims of whatever they could get from them. They must have tortured the young men into revealing their pin numbers.They were successful in getting one out of two pin numbers.
Police soon discovered that hours before the fire, £360 had been withdrawn from a nearby cash machine using Mr Bonomo's bank card.
Either the threat of torture, or actual torture resulted in Mr. Bonomo giving up accurate information. But the other victim, Mr. Ferez, apparently did not. His card was eaten by the ATM machine when the robbers tried to make a withdrawal. But the subsequent sad result illustrates why torture is such a powerful motivating force for extracting information. When Mr. Ferez's ATM card did not work, the enraged criminals returned, viciously tortured and killed the two men, and then burned down the building.
When someone is threatened with torture they have three basic options: say nothing, lie, or tell the truth. Saying nothing gets you tortured until you say something. Lying is useless if the information a torturer is looking for can be confirmed. It buys a little time, but then brings more torture -- and in this case, death. Depending on the individuals, the overall circumstances, and the information in question, torture can produce accurate intelligence, as it has many times throughout history. Some people will tell the truth when faced with the mere threat of torture, out of a natural desire for self-preservation. Not everyone is even capable of coming up with a plausible lie under pressure, even if they had the nerve to attempt one.
As I have noted many times here, those who deny that torture can work simply deny reality. Whether or not torture is an effective means of gaining intelligence depends on the information in question, the interrogator, the interrogatee, and other relevant factors specific to each case. Information extracted through torture can be investigated and confirmed (or invalidated) by other means. Anyone tempted to make the ridiculous assertion that torture "doesn't work," might want to ask themselves how criminals managed to withdraw £360 from Mr. Bonomo's bank card. The reasons these criminals resorted to torture is the same reason that such incidents have taken place innumerable times -- torture can be a fast & effective method of extracting accurate information.
In other news murder is an effective way to rid yourself of unscrupulous enemies, raping someone who's wronged you is an effective way to get laid, and hundreds of waterboards over a couple months can be justified as "fast & effective".
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Jim Manzi's argument against torture is the correct one.
"In other news murder is an effective way to rid yourself of unscrupulous enemies, raping someone who's wronged you is an effective way to get laid, and hundreds of waterboards over a couple months can be justified as "fast & effective"
ReplyDeleteExcept I didn't say any of that, or even imply it. This post said nothing about justification. It is only about utility, and only in reaction to the "doesn't work" argument. That argument can be disproven with even a single example. But since people persist in making it, I keep putting up examples.
"Anyway, Jim Manzi's argument against torture is the correct one."
It's a reasonable one. But there is no one "correct" argument.
Sure you didn't say it, I'm just reiterating that there are considerations besides effectiveness (per our earlier spat)
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not saying there's only one correct argument, only that Manzi's is correct in relation to those who overstate the case against torture by claiming "it never works".