The counter argument is that it's based on a moronic assumption that the person being tortured is guilty and yet will reveal the correct location and instructions on how to disarm the device while the clock is still ticking. That holds water for nobody but a sadist looking for cover or a dimwit who has seen too many episodes of 24.
That's a completely different scenario with different motivations and no bearing on the ticking time bomb one. (And even in that case note the information came too late to save the victim.)
In a ticking time bomb scenario, a suspected terrorist might or might not give up the correct location of the device in many circumstances - could be a lead pipe, asking nicely, bribery, being attractive, making a convincing moral argument, or they may be unwilling, or unable in the event that they are innocent. Clearly none of those can be assumed and it won't be the same each time.
So even if one were to look at it from a purely amoral utilitarian viewpoint - even on those kind of sociopathic terms it is still absurd and very telling for an individual to seize on torture as a magic bullet for obtaining success. When we also consider that torture is widely documented as ineffective for gathering information, we are left with sadists, stupids, and immature creeps whose understanding of the world is based on action movies.
It is documented by people trying to make an emotional point that it is ineffective. It is so obvious that I cannot believe intellectual people fall for the idea that because we find torture morally disgusting that is must be "ineffective." That is purely an emotional argument to make us feel better about our emotional decision. When does torture become ineffective? Why is it that threatening a child with going to bed early or a criminal with jail time to give up co-conspirators can be effective but "torture" cannot? Where on the spectrum does it become ineffective? Such a delineation does not exist and we all know it. If we want to ban it on moral grounds then fine but let's not delude ourselves. It makes us feel nice to say it doesn't work. No one argues it is this perfect mechanism, neither is sending your kid to bed early, but to say it wholly does not work is spurious.
On the contrary, the only people proposing torture are doing it from a purely emotional standpoint. And what a disgusting and shameful emotional standpoint they are revealing themselves to have.
Nonsense. You are claiming it is ineffective and your proof is an op-ed written by one FBI interrogator.
Did you actually read the original article [1]? Nowhere does Ali Soufan really make a case that torture is actually ineffective. Soufan makes claims that digging through receipts and conventional methods were more effective than whatever "torture" the CIA actually did but nowhere is the claim "torture is not effective" substantiated.
You are showing your emotions by claiming that anyone that could think torture could be effective (setting aside the decision to use it based on moral grounds) must only be doing so because of emotions. Is thinking that digging through someone's receipts during an investigation also an emotional position? What you have made is a non sequitur.
Take the emotion out of it. Where is the actual evidence or theory of why it cannot possibly work? The problem you have is that any example of torture yielding the intending information disproves your position entirely. You will really make that claim? As well, I asked what is the delineation because everyday parents as well as police use the tactics on the spectrum of discomfort to yield results often-times (nothing is perfect) the results are obtained. So where is this magical line of delineation? I don't think it exists. You are only proving the point that the fact based decision of whether or not torture can be effective in yielding information is being made based on emotion rather than reality. The Mexican military have used the tactics of torture to discover information that they were trying to find and in instances they did yield that information. [2] Again, any instance that shows that it "works" disputes directly your claim. Now, again, this is separate from our decision not to use such tactics because they are wholly disgusting and morally despicable but we are being coy if we claim it does not work because we want to make ourselves feel better.
> Where is the actual evidence or theory of why it cannot possibly work? The problem you have is that any example of torture yielding the intending information disproves your position entirely.
You are missing the point entirely. Sure it can sometimes work (hence my lead pipe comment). However, it is widely documented as one of the poorest methods available for getting accurate information. The only reason left for favouring it therefore is simply an emotional one - and a deeply nasty emotion at that.
Your pseudo-utilitarian line of argument could just as well be applied to rape or murder. But these are cultural universals - the fact is that all societies consider these things, including torture, to be immoral and crimes (and yes they still occur of course). To be debating 'both sides of the argument' in these issues as if it were somehow a reasonable activity is therefore objectively a sign of individual and societal sickness.
Don't fool yourself, the systematic practise of torture is no different from the systematic practise of murder or rape (indeed it often includes those acts even in modern times) - to be an apologist for this is something that will shame you to your grave. To paraphrase Father Phil from The Sopranos, now you can never say that nobody told you.
