Or if the ideologue has the motive of a god belief behind his/her ideology. I totally agree with you, torturing a loved one would be more effective than torturing the person. But there might be a cultural influence to be considered. How one culture feels about loved ones is not completely consistent across cultures. And in this case, the OP scenario noted a problem with threatening family members: The OP also said the captors were not the torturing type. In other words, all holds would not be barred.
And that's kinda' what I'm getting at. With all the stipulations as indicated by the OP, the Big Bad They is way wussy to get me, the ideologue, to give it up in just a few hours' time. No. One of these parameters would need to change in order to allow for raising of the stakes if that short timeline is to remain as an inalterable part of the scenario for me to break and give it up.
Do I know you only have a few hours? Because that sounds like not a whole huge amount of time to endure whatever it is they throw at me, particularly since you've whittled their options down to stern glances and saying "I'm not angry... I'm just disappointed." So the angle of attack needs to be around the beliefs, I think. I'm fighting for what I believe in, except I'm probably not. No-one's beliefs are that grounded in the beliefs themselves. I'm fighting for - and probably with - my friends. So you need to convince me that my friends are not my friends. Explain that actually, they are the bad guys and no, of course you don't expect me to believe it. But look at logical inconsistencies A, B and C. Look at the things I know they've lied about in the past to other people 'for the cause' - of course they had good reasons. They always have good reasons, don't they? Look, it's not my fault, they've been lying to people just like me for years, and they've got really good at it. But the fact is, they're not really my friends. They don't care about me. I'm just a tool to be discarded. Then show me proof that they sold me out - fabricated, if need be. At that point, I'll give you anything you want in order to get back at the bastards I thought were my friends.
I did a ton of research on this subject not that long ago, and you dismissed my knowledge as an irrelevant political or moral view on the subject because I said the only thing torture can successfully accomplish is a political goal. I did a ton of research on this subject in the past and you expect me to be swayed by your assertion, you don't believe it. You have also offered, "knowing that the truth can be verified and a lie can't" as a reason torture would work. That's problematic because one of the reasons the military experts give that torture is ineffective is, it leads to wasting an unacceptable amount of resources chasing down or acting on false leads. The scenario used to support using torture is typically a ticking time bomb the torturers must get the person to reveal the location of. That is rarely, if ever, the case. This is also not what actually happens in the real world: These are the kind of things that are depicted in books, movies and TV shows. We see cops supposedly solving crimes because a suspect slips up on some little thing. In real life, people's stories change naturally. Innocent people give changing testimony. There is an entire science behind understanding eyewitness testimony that goes well beyond the subject of this thread. To @Jack Asher, you dismissed his citations as: You also said: There is a consensus among experts and the research. Where there wasn't a consensus was with a few politicians that made the same mistakes you are making, they went with their gut and not with the evidence. I really can't get into that in this forum, it's a political hot potato. It's not a matter of Jack finding articles against and you being able to find articles that are pro. The overwhelming vast majority of expert and experienced sources on this subject all support the conclusion, torture results in wasted resources chasing false information with very little if any gain. I'm not sure how you expect to support your point of view without even so much as an effort to see what the research actually shows, what the military experts actually have to say about the matter. I've done that, and it is not a 'some say yes and an equal number say no'. The vast majority of the sources concur, torture is not a useful tool for extracting information from prisoners. It's no surprise people have tried to justify torture after the fact. The claim some little thing given up eventually led to Bin Laden has been questioned since the same information could have been obtained elsewhere and much of the information was given up before anyone was water boarded. Even given some little clue was revealed if it was, the amount of false information is so much more likely as to make the torture a useless technique. People will say anything they think will stop the torture, not what is true.
I would note that this was my response, but that doesn't seem to prevent the usual suspects turning every comment into an argument.
HEY, PEOPLE!! Can we please remember that this is NOT the Debate Room? The OP asked what would make you turn; the question was not about whether or not "torture works." Let's stop throwing little bombs at each other, okay? Thanks.
Hey that's pretty cool. You must have forgotten to post all the evidence of the effort you made. There weren't any "vague assertions," she was very specific about what she researched and when. All you have to back your shit up is your gut feeling, so just say, "I think torture works, against the scientific evidence and experiences of people who have tortured and found it ineffective." Do the Bill O'Riely and speak with your gut, or admit you are wrong, and have nothing more to say.
I noted. Again, I present the OP's question. I cannot see how the OP could have been more clear without calling us all dolts. We are not in the Debate Room, though this thread seems to have metastasized from that unfortunate growth and is now presenting as worryingly malignant.
Sorry cross post. The answer to the OP's question is very clear. He needs to look up interrogation techniques that work, no clamp electrodes onto the problem's testicles.
Well, the OP was sort of two-pronged... the last part cast us as the prisoner, but the first part cast us as the captor ("You have a few hours, or maybe less, to get the captured fella to give up the info. If you're a liberal democracy, but you also need the info, how do you get the person to turn?") I can't help with the second part, b/c I'm far from an idealogue, would respond quickly to fear or pain, etc. I'd be easy to get information from. Hell, just offer me a little chocolate. For the first part... I think it's the time frame that's going to cause the most trouble. I'm not sure that any of our suggested techniques are going to work in a few hours or less...
Sorry, threw the above grenade back over the fence before reading your post. I prefer not to take it back given it was a direct attack on me rather than something supporting the debated POV. But I will leave it at that. I agree, it's off topic to debate the matter, but the discussion of the effectiveness of torture is at least related, even if the OP said that wasn't likely to be the means of persuasion that would work in the story.
Just checked the dictionary definition of ideologue: "an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic." While it would appear that there are a number of uncompromising and dogmatic individuals on the forum, I don't think anyone here can truly 100% put themselves into the shoes of the sort of character you're describing. Are there any real-life scenarios similar to your situation that you could possibly research into? I suppose at a stripped down, basic level, the one thing that will undermine anyone really is doubt: "Is this worth it? Am I on the right side?" etc. How firm is this character in his beliefs? Do they doubt any values of their ideology? You know your character better than I do - What makes them uncertain?
Well we have actual examples of "ideologues" we've been interrogating for years. We've even tried torture on them, though it has never yielded reliable information (see:above). One of my links went to a CIA operative who was discussing techniques that did work. Oh, wait, I didn't post that, here you go. Honestly as the article says, the most effective technique is to pretend to be their friends It reminds me of a history special I saw on a German interrogator (I can't remember his name) who would extract vital information from prisoners by going on leisurely strolls with them. The problem with all of these @Birmingham is that they require weeks or more with the prisoners to establish a relationship. If you're imagining that a man can be shown the folly of his ways in an hour long conversation you're being unrealistic, or you're Terry Goodkind. Or both. It's very unlikely that the man you're trying to turn hasn't been exposed to arguments against his factions methods. Daesh members aren't unaware that their methods are killing children, and they have already managed to find the flaw in any argument that points out that killing children is okay. Breaking your ideologue is going to take time an energy. Alternatively he could let information slip while the interrogators have thrown him off guard by being nice to him.
Hahaha too true! I still remember that moment when Richard Rahl convinced a whole village of people to come up one by one to drop or pick up some stone to indicate their submission to 'reason', after a several-page-long sermon cus you know, if you defy Lord Rahl, you are an enemy of Reason
I'm new to this thread, but assumed the OP was asking this question as related to writing. In other words, how would you write a character involved in this scenario. I think @Ben414 has pretty much laid it all out. These are the kinds of issues that would impact on the situation in the story. I think if you, as a writer, work these out specifically for your story, then the answer to how the tortured person would be made to turn (or not) can be answered. As far as the story goes.
Which makes a lot of sense too. Most of these terrorist have a a bleak view of America and its tactics. Cementing those views with torture will only strengthen their resolve. By showing them that our stances isn't so hot-headed and unreasonable, we can make a lot of headway with the individual. You can do something like convince me to give you the information, with the help of some chemical compounds to relax and loosen my lips. (Alcohol and Marijuana come to mind, although probably better options exist.) Or you can set up a 'fake' scenario causing the ideologue to believe he is being rescued, and slips the information to his rescuer who is an undercover agent. Could work if you made it convincing enough.
I've never actually read the books, but every new thing I learn about them makes me think the author could give Ayn Rand a run for her money.
I've read through some of the comments. I had no idea I would cause such a world war regarding interrogation techniques. I am eager to share some of my own thought but I'll be hijacking my own post from myself... One method I thought of is actually a bit of a cop out. I said that things would be easy for me if this was a Benedict Arnold type, but, bummer, this is a John Wilkes Booth type, and therefore he really doesn't want to do what I need him to do. The solution is, I suppose, to get one of his buddies, who is less ideological, to be captured or turn himself in. This way, the Arnold type will give up some info, and also, the Booth type might hear about that, and realize that he's already screwed, and maybe could do some damage control. Perhaps the gravity of the situation can make him realize that cooperation with the tyrannical enemy will be a lesser of two evils. It's a thought.... Naturally if I find anything better in past or future comments (or my own gray matter) I'll go for it. Again, thanks for your comments! If anyone has more, keep'em coming!
