Your assertion that bribery would extract truth but torture would only extract lies is unsound. Why could not the subject just give lies for the bribe just as you say they would if tortured? I am not sure if you know how torture works, but I don't think they just let the subject go when he gives some random info to make the pain go away, but I would think they check the veracity of the info. They ask questions to which the correct answers are already known to test how they are doing as well before they get to the unknowns. They just don't send him home with a handshake, a bag of cheetos and a bottle of pop for his troubles the first time he blurts out some nonsense. No friend, they continue playing Celine Dion over and over and over until the subject cries out that he will tell them everything as well as perform oral sex on them and their barnyard animals as well if they like if only they will play some metallica instead.
If accurate information could not be extracted under heavy torture then bribing someone with justine bieber tickets or an iPad2 with Angry Birds already loaded would be less likely to do so don't you agree. Tell me, how much total agony do you think you could withstand before spilling all your best kept secrets or would you hold out for the bribe of a shiny new Chevy Corvette?
Non-consensual torture is abhorrent, and is rightly outlawed, but I think it is difficult to argue that it would not be effective in extracting information from a tight-lipped scoundrel who will not divulge the secret after you had already frowned with disapproval in his general direction many times and told him he isn't being nice.
If you are going to argue that it works, please provide some evidence. You can postulate all you like, but in the real world torture has failed miserably.
Evidence? I have to do some research on the topic, any volunteers..?
The issue with info from torture is that it may or may not be correct. If it is never correct, then one could just do like muslim terrorist, make them confess something silly and then cut their heads off.
From a synopsis of the TRUE story of Bravo 2 Zero (also a brilliant book and movie):
We witness the interrogation and torture of Andy and Dinger who have now been turned over to the Iraqi Secret Police (the dreaded "White Socks") in a secret service prison in Baghdad. Their interrogator is well-spoken and relentless. Andy is continually beaten - his teeth are smashed and at one point a dentist is brought in, not to repair his teeth, but to increase the torture.
After a couple of cover stories, Andy decides to almost tell the truth, leaving out a few salient points.
When someone who has undergone torture training break at some point (tho still maintaining control over the information released) I doubt I would ever be able to do the same if captured.
Eh? I handed you a synopsis of real world events where torture extracted information from one of the most trained in resisting torture. A primary source - the holy grail in history.
You handed me a synopsis of a movie based on a true story about a guy who wasn't eager to die so he could get his 72 virgins. Perhaps a narrative written by the guy would be a primary source - of a guy who wasn't eager to die so he could get his 72 virgins. But it wasn't a narrative written by that guy, it was a synopsis of a movie.
On the other hand, I've given you a publicly archived government document disclosing the information obtained by torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the guy at the center of a 3 strike bombing campaign, who even paid out a reward for the completion of the first bombing before being taken into custody and tortured. Yet the other two bombings seem to have gone off without a hitch - end of our ticking time-bomb justification for torture because apparently it just blew up in your face.
And on top of this, YOU have the audacity to balk at the idea of using a youtube video of Dubya saying what is on his mind as evidence of what Dubya had on his mind. Wow.
Then do like I did - read his story.
What you have provided me is information that torture did not work particularly well. With one guy.
I'd go even further: Torture doesn't always provide viable information. In fact, sometimes it even provides false information. But this cannot be extrapolated to torture never working and always providing false information.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say torture usually works and usually provides actionable intel.
(Btw, if torture never provides accurate intel, then why are some people receiving special training to avoid breaking under torture?)
You know, special training to avoid breaking under torture likely only makes the situation worse. The problem with torture is that it does make people talk - and they say everything they possibly can. But when does the torturer know he has the truth? Those trained to avoid 'breaking' will break at different times, meaning the torture has to continue to make sure all information is extracted. So how does a torturer know the difference between the truth, the cover stories, and the wild attempts to say anything to make it stop?
Further, what about implicated co-conspirators? Do you torture them as well - even though you know for CERTAIN that such allegations could easily be an attempt to turn the torturer on someone else?
This is why I'm asking for solid evidence that actionable intelligence is truly 'saving lives'. It's a big Pandora's box to open to try to 'save' maybe 5,000 lives a year at best, considering Americans kill three times as many Americans in any given year than terrorist attacks do worldwide. Hell, 8 times as many Americans per year die in auto accidents than there are terrorist victims worldwide - and you still have the problem of innocents getting tortured.
"You know, special training to avoid breaking under torture likely only makes the situation worse."
Indeed, for those undergoing torture. But those people who are not exposed will not be hurt.
Torture intel generally refers to location of enemy positions/persons or battle plans. When someone is captured it is assumed by both parties that the captive will eventually reveal information. The torturer therefore needs information quickly before his enemy has a chance to alter their plan to encompass the circumstance. The more senior the person being tortured is, the more likely he is to know something "big". Knowing the enemy's gun positions, observation posts locations, commander locations, etc., is extremely valuable tactical information which can reduce own casualties substantially.
The basic rule is: If the torture of one enemy has a probability of saving one allied, then torture is a rational choice.
"The problem with torture is that it does make people talk - and they say everything they possibly can."
And this is exactly why most modern militaries do not torture as a rule. It's like shooting at someone waving a white flag, it's against the rules. However, when the enemy is not playing by the rules of war (terrorism) it's difficult not to play dirty oneself.
"But when does the torturer know he has the truth?"
Usually when the words coming out is congruent with other intel.
"Those trained to avoid 'breaking' will break at different times, meaning the torture has to continue to make sure all information is extracted."
Correct. This is why torture can be more harmful than helpful, soldiers have been trained in disinformation. It's also why Gitmo and AG, even looking past the uneccesary horror, might even have been inefficient. But that does not invalidate torture in itself.
"Further, what about implicated co-conspirators?"
Looking apart from "I" not being a supporter of torture (because I know the best strategy for Prisoner's Dilemma, co-conspirators (?) are usually tortured too. Though I prefer the terms soldiers and commanders over co-conspirators as the former applies to war and the latter to civil society.
"This is why I'm asking for solid evidence that actionable intelligence is truly 'saving lives'."
That would assume a direct causation between an actual event and an event that didn't happen. That's impossible to give evidence of. "I didn't drive today so I potentially avoided hitting a child that ran into the road on which I usually drive on" is the same fallacious thought process. I can assume torture avoided destruction, but it's impossible to give any direct evidence.
A ticking time bomb might not go off as planned, but you cannot wait for the bomb to go off (or not) and then torture to get the defusing information. And if you torture someone to give you the defusing codes before the bomb is set to go off and successfuly disarm it, that's still not evidence that torture saved any lives.