Why do they use torture when they have the truth drug?

[lunatica]

This has always bothered me and I can only conclude that torturing people is more satisfying to those who do it and to those who order it. It's the same psychology as the murderer, the rapist, the abuser of those who he can victimize. What's the difference between a person who can abuse their children who must suffer both physical and psychological abuse and the torturer? I think it's only the degree of opportunity and torture being sanctioned to some degree.

But why not use Sodium Pentathol which is the truth drug? Or a drug developed by the Russians which is codenamed SP-17 (see the quote below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_drug


"A defector from the biological weapons department 12 of the KGB "illegals" (S) directorate (part of Russian SVR service) claimed that a truth drug codenamed SP-17 is highly effective and has been widely used. "The 'remedy which loosens the tongue' has no taste, no smell, no color, and no immediate side effects. And, most important, a person has no recollection of having the 'heart-to-heart talk'" (the subject feels afterwards as if they had suddenly fallen asleep)..."

[CJCRANE]

1. ...maybe they didn't want the truth...they "create reality" remember...

[JayMusgrove]

3. Sounds about right to me! n/t

[lunatica]

6. That's a good answer, but why go to so much trouble torturing and keeping it a secret?

If they want to create reality, which they did, why not just create it with propaganda? Why go to so much effort to detain and transport people to be tortured and try to keep it all secret? Why put themselves in the position of being war criminals?

[CJCRANE]

9. I'm not sure if it was secret - just the extent of it was secret.

You have to look at the way government works. The low-level and mid-level officers were just doing their jobs, they weren't neocon believers. So, for instance, if you want a fake terror alert you can't just make it up out of whole cloth. You have to base it on some "intelligence".

As for being "war criminals", you can't be a criminal when you're in charge.

[lunatica]

11. The public would have bought their story if they said they used truth drugs

And today Bush would still be popular because using drugs, although illegal is so much more 'humane'. No one would believe it was horrible because, after all, it was done to protect us.

It would have worked in their favor if they had used drugs because the harm to the detainee is practically nil. Or if not nil they could have claimed it was. And they could have used it to create the propaganda that they're humane and don't torture.

[CJCRANE]

12. But they didn't want the truth. They wanted evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection nt

[lunatica]

13. My point is, they could have manufactured the truth with either method

But with the use of drugs, or just saying they used drugs, the American public would have accepted it.

I agree that the only 'truth' they wanted was the one they manufactured.

Perhaps the answer is they tortured for no other reason than because they could. If so then that conclusion is something that should be added to the knowledge of human behavior. Bush did like blowing up frogs, which could or couldn't be one indicator of a psychopath.

[slackmaster]

2. Drugs are ban.. uh BAD, mmmmmmmmkay?

Using drugs would send the wrong message to America's children. Obviously.

[Zywiec]

4. Not sure if you read the link you provided

but in the 2nd sentence:

"The use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law."

So it would be torture any way. Are you proposing that?

[lunatica]

7. I did read that and no I'm not proposing the use of truth drugs

I'm asking a rhetorical question because I'm actually curious as to why they wouldn't use the drugs rather than go to so much trouble to torture.

[K Gardner]

19. I didn't know that, but it's really kind of ironic don't you think? It's OK to do the AbuGahrib on

a human, but not OK to painlessly insert a small IV catheter or give an injection and administer a drug that doesn't hurt. What does that mean when we do "lethal injections"??

The irony of all this is just killing me. Irony and hypocrisy. Good find on that.

[MrScorpio]

5. It was a concerted effort to both punish and humiliate detainees

Torture for torture's sake.

It's foolish to ever think that the Bushies wanted to associate themselves with the truth in any form whatsoever.

[lunatica]

8. Which goes back to my point about torturers being the enhanced version

of the person who abuses their children or anyone who they can abuse. In any case it's worth an exchange of ideas just in the effort to understand what's really going on in the Bush administration's minds.

[The_Commonist]

10. They were also sending a message...

...to the families and communities of those being tortured:

"You're next!"

[harun]

14. I don't believe it was about info, it was about punishment.

[doc03]

15. Torture is more fun. n/t

[psychopomp]

16. Truth drugs don't work

People are more likely to concoct bullshit than tell anything useful.

[lunatica]

17. But torture doesn't work either only even worse

Because the person being tortured isn't going to concoct anything. They're going to say what the torturer wants them to say. But if they used drugs then the American public wouldn't be so outraged. It would have been to their benefit to use drugs or even just get them drunk.

[jberryhill]

18. Would some sort of euphoric agents...

...administered as part of a positive conditioning program be more likely to "work"?

And, no, I'm simply curious.

[psychopomp]

20. The only "truth serum" is alcohol

:toast:

[jberryhill]

21. Well, that's the kind of thing I mean...

The "Guantanamo Canteen" - pair off suspects with translators as drinking buddies and have them spend a couple of hours together every couple of days.