What are the pros and the cons of torture for terrorists?

Answer 1

It's pretty hard to legally, ethically, morally or especially practically justify torture in any sense. First, from a practical standpoint, it's hugely ineffective. From a purely practical perspective, and setting aside other concerns, the fact is that torture just doesn't work well. The problem is thus: If you actually do increase the subject's stress levels to a point that overcomes inhibition, it also overcomes the need to provide accurate intelligence. The subject's primary goal is not to inform the interrogator; it's to avert further torture. This means that any intelligence gained in this manner has to be extremely suspect, as now the interrogator has provided the subject with an even greater incentive than they previously had to misinform. Due the the need to verify intelligence gained in any less-than-ideal manner, the subject knows that telling the truth will typically not stop the torture -- so an answer that will is sought. In addition to this, as the subject's stress levels increase, the ability for them to assemble and deliver complex intelligence decreases. In short, torture doesn't work. And this alone should provide reason to avoid this means of intelligence gathering. Additionally, the attrition rate in interrogators is very high, and varies directly in proportion to the level of torture. The ideal interrogator should not be motivated by a psychopathology such as sadism, as it complicates the transferance greatly. And it's very very hard to keep a healthy, motivatged interrogator both healthy and motivated when they engage in activites that normal people -- including the interrogator -- find deeply abhorant. Other reasons include the psychology of interrogation from the subject's perspective. In criminal investigations, interrogations involve some pretty complex psychology, much of it targetted at making the subject feel more comfortable in identifying with the interrogator(s). In criminal cases, this is somewhat easier than military interrogations. The subject in a criminal investigation may actually be a criminal; wartime interrogation subjects consider themselves heros, the interrogators, villians, and they're not reflecting a pathological delusion; they're perceiving the way their countrymen and even the rest of the world look on them. A subject convinced that right is on their side and that their interrogators have lost the moral highground (which is typical of military interrogations) are far more resistant to torture. Finally, torture tends to swing world opinion against the interrogator in a number of levels. This can have negative effects that are in scope far too numerous to discuss in this context. In summary, I have a very difficult time envisioing a likely case where all the factors invovled combine to yield positive results.