This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/26/torture-baby-time-bomb-terrorist-trump-lee-hurst-comedian

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Here's why if Lee Hurst was strapped to a time bomb I wouldn't torture a terrorist Here's why if Lee Hurst were strapped to a time bomb I wouldn't torture a terrorist
(about 5 hours later)
“Your baby is tied to a timebomb,” suggests comedian Lee Hurst. “You have the terrorist. He tells you you have one hour. Do you torture him to find your baby or let it die?”“Your baby is tied to a timebomb,” suggests comedian Lee Hurst. “You have the terrorist. He tells you you have one hour. Do you torture him to find your baby or let it die?”
My answer, along with I suspect most of the Anglo-American intelligence community, would be ‘no’. What Hurst describes is a classic reiteration of the age-old ‘ticking bomb’ scenario, and it’s superficially appealing until you start to dig into the assumptions lurking behind it.My answer, along with I suspect most of the Anglo-American intelligence community, would be ‘no’. What Hurst describes is a classic reiteration of the age-old ‘ticking bomb’ scenario, and it’s superficially appealing until you start to dig into the assumptions lurking behind it.
Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that this is an obviously ridiculous example. There’s no reason for a terrorist to issue some absurd challenge to intelligence agents at the risk of giving them advanced operational knowledge of the attack. This is a situation that is never going to occur outside of an episode of 24.Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that this is an obviously ridiculous example. There’s no reason for a terrorist to issue some absurd challenge to intelligence agents at the risk of giving them advanced operational knowledge of the attack. This is a situation that is never going to occur outside of an episode of 24.
The first thing Hurst assumes is perfect knowledge. In his world, unlike the real world, the powers that be know exactly what the plot is. They know that the baby exists, that it is tied to a time-bomb somewhere. Furthermore, they know that the man in custody is definitely a terrorist who is involved in the plot.The first thing Hurst assumes is perfect knowledge. In his world, unlike the real world, the powers that be know exactly what the plot is. They know that the baby exists, that it is tied to a time-bomb somewhere. Furthermore, they know that the man in custody is definitely a terrorist who is involved in the plot.
In the real world of course we wouldn’t be dealing with a terrorist. We’d be dealing with a suspect, and that suspect could just as easily be a random civilian caught up in the action, or a man with mental health issues who made the whole thing up as some delusion - a scenario far more likely than the one being described. Torturing them wouldn’t be even remotely justified. It would be a unwarranted act of physical assault an innocent and possibly vulnerable victim.In the real world of course we wouldn’t be dealing with a terrorist. We’d be dealing with a suspect, and that suspect could just as easily be a random civilian caught up in the action, or a man with mental health issues who made the whole thing up as some delusion - a scenario far more likely than the one being described. Torturing them wouldn’t be even remotely justified. It would be a unwarranted act of physical assault an innocent and possibly vulnerable victim.
Let’s carry on with the ‘game’ though and assume that we have the right man, that he’s definitely a terrorist and definitely involved in this plot to blow up a baby with a time bomb. The next huge assumption is that he actually has the information necessary to find and defuse the bomb. Given that he’s now in custody, its likely that his operational knowledge is out of date. If he’s working with collaborators who now have custody of the baby, then they will likely have assumed that any information their colleague holds is compromised and changed their plans accordingly.Let’s carry on with the ‘game’ though and assume that we have the right man, that he’s definitely a terrorist and definitely involved in this plot to blow up a baby with a time bomb. The next huge assumption is that he actually has the information necessary to find and defuse the bomb. Given that he’s now in custody, its likely that his operational knowledge is out of date. If he’s working with collaborators who now have custody of the baby, then they will likely have assumed that any information their colleague holds is compromised and changed their plans accordingly.
But let’s pretend that all of these increasingly unrealistic assumptions hold true. We definitely have the terrorist, and he definitely knows where the baby is right now. Surely then it’s time to dust off the waterboard and charge up the electrodes?But let’s pretend that all of these increasingly unrealistic assumptions hold true. We definitely have the terrorist, and he definitely knows where the baby is right now. Surely then it’s time to dust off the waterboard and charge up the electrodes?
Well no, because then we come to the biggest assumption of all - that torture is an effective way of getting information out of somebody. The reality is, it just isn’t. There is a reason why intelligence agencies across the west have backed away from the use of torture, aside from any moral or ethical objections, and it’s this: it doesn’t work.Well no, because then we come to the biggest assumption of all - that torture is an effective way of getting information out of somebody. The reality is, it just isn’t. There is a reason why intelligence agencies across the west have backed away from the use of torture, aside from any moral or ethical objections, and it’s this: it doesn’t work.
Decades of experience have shown that under torture, people are liable to tell you whatever you want to hear, regardless whether it’s true or not. They may simply lie, and in Hurst’s scenario you have no alternative information to corroborate their story against and little time left to test theories. The act of torture itself may even lead to confusion or memory loss, meaning that even if they want to tell you the truth, they may no longer be able to reliably.Decades of experience have shown that under torture, people are liable to tell you whatever you want to hear, regardless whether it’s true or not. They may simply lie, and in Hurst’s scenario you have no alternative information to corroborate their story against and little time left to test theories. The act of torture itself may even lead to confusion or memory loss, meaning that even if they want to tell you the truth, they may no longer be able to reliably.
We’ve been here again and again and again. The U.S. Intelligence Science Board concluded in 2006 that, “the scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information.” The U.S. Army have long held that torture produces “unreliable results” and that gaining the cooperation of sources produces far more valuable results.We’ve been here again and again and again. The U.S. Intelligence Science Board concluded in 2006 that, “the scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information.” The U.S. Army have long held that torture produces “unreliable results” and that gaining the cooperation of sources produces far more valuable results.
As recently as 2014, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee produced a detailed report on the CIA’s use of torture. They found that it had produced little valuable intelligence, and pointed out that the CIA’s own experience prior to 9/11 had shown that ‘coercive interrogation’ had ‘historically proven to be ineffective’ and would ‘probably result in false answers’.As recently as 2014, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee produced a detailed report on the CIA’s use of torture. They found that it had produced little valuable intelligence, and pointed out that the CIA’s own experience prior to 9/11 had shown that ‘coercive interrogation’ had ‘historically proven to be ineffective’ and would ‘probably result in false answers’.
If we lived in a world scripted by TV writers then Lee Hurst’s argument might make some sense. The fact is we don’t, though I can understand why some people might be confused. The most likely outcome of Hurst’s scenario in the real world is that the baby doesn’t exist, the man in custody ranting about time bombs turns out to have serious mental health issues leading to paranoid delusions, and the authorities end up torturing a vulnerable and sick man.If we lived in a world scripted by TV writers then Lee Hurst’s argument might make some sense. The fact is we don’t, though I can understand why some people might be confused. The most likely outcome of Hurst’s scenario in the real world is that the baby doesn’t exist, the man in custody ranting about time bombs turns out to have serious mental health issues leading to paranoid delusions, and the authorities end up torturing a vulnerable and sick man.
Even if the scenario turned out out to be real, the outcome of torturing the man would most likely be that agents wasted valuable search time extracting unreliable information from a suspect with no means of confirming it. Time they could have spent more productively trying to gain the suspect’s cooperation, or just searching for the baby.Even if the scenario turned out out to be real, the outcome of torturing the man would most likely be that agents wasted valuable search time extracting unreliable information from a suspect with no means of confirming it. Time they could have spent more productively trying to gain the suspect’s cooperation, or just searching for the baby.
In a real world version of Hurst’s example, torture would be just as likely to condemn the baby to death.In a real world version of Hurst’s example, torture would be just as likely to condemn the baby to death.