Information Obtained Through Torture is Not Reliable

It makes perfect sense that someone would lie to end the torture that is being forced on them. Take the Salem witch trials for instance, were those women really witches? I am going to go out on a limb her and say no, but a lot of them would admit to have alliances with the devil in order to avoid torture and being burned at the stake. One would do anything in regards to ending pain, even lying and giving out false accusations. How is this an appropriate way for the American government to obtain information?

To begin, let us define torture, as to avoid any confusion. As a noun, the simplest definition for torture is: “extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.” As a verb, it can take on several definitions, some of those being: “to force or extort” or “to afflict with severe pain of mind or body.” It has even taken on the meaning “to distort or pervert.”

That being said let us move on to discussing the inefficacy of torture in modern society. America built itself on a solid foundation, creating a system of justice and law based on that of the Romans, a governmental system similar to that of Ancient Greece, and an ethical value system based primarily on that of Westernized religious standards. The largest deviation from America’s roots as a young nation is the growth and use of our military. George Washington warned us of the dangers of entangling alliances and told us of the importance of maintaining an isolationist foreign policy; in the centuries since then, we, particularly our governments, have forgotten the warnings of our first president as we struggle to keep up with the ever-changing popular whims of the global society. Along with having armed forces that receive approximately 50% of the world’s military expenditur, America has adopted an aggressive foreign policy, an interventionist “preemptivist” style that interferes in the affairs of states all over the world in the name of democracy. This type of foreign policy comes with its own set of problems: our focus is far too widespread, the sphere of information from which to draw is far too large and all-encompassing. With little hope of keeping up with the ever-increasing number of foes that our aggressive position creates, we are desperate to attain valid and important information regarding issues of national security. Our newly-found enemies have one main focus: The United States. We, the United States, have a large number of areas that need attention; our government is aware of this fact, and is thus willing to do whatever it takes to obtain information for matters of national security (under the Bush/Cheney administration of course). For the sake of expediency and convenience we are willing to torture in order to get such information.

So how’s it working out for us? Well, aside from its immorality and blatant disregard for humanity, it also yields inaccurate information. Torture is an ineffectual means by which to obtain information. Under extreme pressure and stress, the human body begins to shut down. When the body begins to exhaust, the brain does as well. Particularly with waterboarding, when the victim is denied the chance to breathe, blood flow is restricted to the brain. Waterboarding has effects similar to those of drowning: panic, dizziness, and tachycardia. This all puts the body and brain under significant strain, inhibiting the ability to think. Information obtained from a victim of waterboarding is inaccurate due to the fact that thought is clouded due to a lack of oxygen and an increased heart rate. Clearer thought would allow for more accurate and detailed information, so it would make more sense to grant the detainee the ability to think clearly. Is it possible to think clearly while under extreme conditions of torture?

Furthermore, the information given up during torture is not only inaccurate due to physical inhibitions, but also mental ones. Those subjected to torturous conditions are willing to make up information (if physically, able of course) in order to cease their suffering. John McCain even spoke of this; when he was tortured he gave up false information in an attempt to stop the torture. He yielded no useful information, and actually gave them the names of the Green Bay Packer’s offensive lineup when asked the names of his flight crew, all in a feeble attempt to suspend the torture. Knowing that torture can bring completely falsified statements, can it ever be fully trusted to yield accurate information? With such a margin of error, can it ever be justified? The bottom line is: torture is an ineffective means by which to attempt to obtain information. After all, its definition has been construed to mean "to distort or pervert." I would prefer my national security information to be nethier distorted nor perverted, thank you.

I do believe the information is reliable. If i was being tortured the last thing i would do is lie. It may temporarily relieve the pain but it would be worse in the long run. If telling the truth would ensure the torture to stop then anyone with a bit of sense should comply. There are few exceptions where the the criminal/terrorist may have an IQ of 23 but even then they should realize that telling the truth would stop the pain.

Often times torture is justified by some who claim it helps to protect the country from terrorists and such yet it serves no such purpose. Information gleaned through torture is often unreliable as the tortured seek any means to end the torment. There is no way to tell if the information is accurate or has any thread of truth. And even if this information was reliable, how much pain would one be willing to inflict in order to get it? While techniques like sleep deprivation and exposure to the cold are common, at what point do we stop and accept other harsh actions like water-boarding? Torture is unnecessarily cruel and it does not force the victim to speak the truth.

This is perhaps one of the most effective arguments regarding torture. And it notes some critical things. First, people have a tendency to spout out whatever in order to stop the pain. 1984's third segment is an example of this. However, I will get to the circumvention of this in a moment. I fully agree that fear will impair memory, as it induces panic. At the very least, though, it means that we should shy away from those movie scenes where the prisoner is inches from losing some body part. If one was going to torture, give them some time to recover. And, of course, the classic "verified by two sources." Definitely, the more sources, the better.

HOWEVER, there is a return for two of the above. First, the two-people rule. Is it just me, or does that technically validate torturing several people to get matching stories? If it does, the arguer shot himself in the foot. And nasty though it is, it does meet the required standards to torture several people into voluntarily admitting something, provided that they aren't prodded into saying something specific. Second, in response to the false information, a degree of torture can be used. If information is not reliable, then make the punishment worse. And for God's sake, people, you ought to be using your discretion! If the information sounds sketchy, verify it elsewhere rather than speed off into the distance with it!

If you have the option to escape pain or even death, and telling the truth is the way to escape. Then no doubt in anyones mind that they will tell the truth. No matter the depth of the willingness to keep the secret kept, everyone has their limit. In a time of nation crisis or secruity it should be aloud to "make" such persons to talk. You can make someone do something they are unwilling to do by being nice. Its a dog eat dog world. The world is not a harmless pillow fight. We have to make certain measures in order to make the appropiate desicion of the peoples well bieng