If you support use of torture, you support al Qa’eda’s “greatest recruiting tool”

[frequentfaller 0]

burn the judge at the stake. torture or witchcraft are wrong, but to say it doesn't or wouldn't work ever is wishful thinking.

Born ok 1st time.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

But we could turn all the terrorists into newts.

They'd get better.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,107]

>torture or witchcraft are wrong, but to say it doesn't or wouldn't work
>ever is wishful thinking.

Now we're getting closer. I agree, both are wrong. I agree, to say neither would never work is not supportable.

Now - does that mean it's a good idea to rely on witchcraft to stop a terrorist if there was a nuclear bomb about to go off? Or would it be a better idea to use a method that had a proven track record?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

burn the judge at the stake. torture or witchcraft are wrong, but to say it doesn't or wouldn't work ever is wishful thinking.

But you don't know if it's worked or not until later on, which is the problem with Mr. Posner's example. When the stakes are at their highest, why would you want to use a technique you know to be highly unreliable (torture) instead of techniques that you know to be much more reliable?

It makes no sense.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

if used properly torture can be an effective to to obtain a desired goal. there is a right time and a right place to use extreme measures and if and when that time comes not using those measures is detremental to yourself not the enemy.

On what basis do you think that there a proper or effective way of using torture? Why do you think that? What led you to that conclusion? On what do you base that assertion?

Or is it just something you want to believe? I don’t know how to say it other than that.

VR/Marg


[Edit to add: Why am I seeing 4 copies of this post? Edit^2: Fixed ... I hope ...]

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Interrogations may involve torture, which various human rights organizations claimed to be ineffective at producing accurate information,

Actually the most explicit voices asserting the ineffectiveness and that torture is detrimental to US strategic interests are (1) professional military interrogators, (2) retired intelligence operatives (not analysts & not public affairs officers), & (3) former torture victims, including US POWs.

In addition to all the other citations I’ve included: LTG Harry E. Soyster, USA (ret) and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), i.e., the Defense Department's lead intelligence agency, & Commanding General of Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM):

“If they think these methods ["enhanced interrogation," i.e., torture] work, they're woefully misinformed. Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world.”

Human rights organizations tend to make normative arguments (morals, ethics). The military and intelligence community ops tend to be more interested in operational, tactical, and strategic advantage.

Quote

but is effective in getting false confessions which might be useful for political reasons for the officer and organization in question by raising the number of successful investigations.

On what do you base that assertion?

Or a more likely scenario: as reams – literally, not figuratively – of false information is generated, finite US resources are devoted to chasing down false leads. Wasting time and wasting resources. This is not notional; this has been observed in the GWOT. How much time, energy, & expense is to be wasted following up on false confessions? It is just – if not more – reasonable & supported by evidence and experts that more information useful to save US lives would likely have been obtained if a detainee was NOT subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation.’ That’s your cost. Real costs.

That’s not the only real example either: the 3rd terrorist suspect on whom the CIA Director has acknowledged “enhanced interrogation” techniques were used including waterboarding, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri. How accurate and useful was the information obtained from al Nashiri? Again from reading the Defenselink transcript, (i.e., the DoD, not an explicit "human rights organization"), al Nashiri asserts he made up a long list of al Qa’eda plots and attacks so his captors would stop torturing him, even telling interrogators that Osama bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. Al Nashiri, in all likelihood, had very useful information. What was lost & how many opportunities were wasted because ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods were used? When the signal to noise ratio becomes so low, it ceases to be effective for anything other than distracting US investigatory efforts.

Quote

However, some argue that one of the reasons torture endures is that torture does indeed work in some instance to extract information/confession, if those who are being tortured are indeed guilty and provide details of crime/plot only the guilty party could produce.

Such as whom? Is Prof Posner's (Univ of Chicago Law) comment as reported in a New Republic article the basis on which you make your argument? (Or are you playing devil’s advocate?)

There are folks who challenge Prof Posner’s assertions. Traditional interrogation methods have been shown to work under extreme circumstances, e.g., the real-world “ticking time bomb scenario”:

“[Jack] Cloonan [32-year FBI veteran, whose experience included counterintelligence, counterterrorism, the Joint Terrorism Task Force] and a New York Police Department detective secured actionable intelligence from a suspect in the foiled millennium-bombing plot in just six hours on December 30, 1999 -- by following FBI procedure, and by encouraging a suspect to pray during his Ramadan fast. The suspect even agreed to place calls to his confederates, which led to their speedy arrests.”

In such a scenario, I would want the most effective interrogation method used, i.e., *not* torture. One might argue that pursuing torture should be criminal &/or reprehensible as it has less likely to achieve the goals we want – saving lives and preventing a catastrophe.

Quote

burn the judge at the stake. torture or witchcraft are wrong, but to say it doesn't or wouldn't work ever is wishful thinking.

Is that really ... really ... the argument on which you want to base advocacy of torture? Really?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,107]

>>but is effective in getting false confessions which might be useful for
>>political reasons for the officer and organization in question by raising the
>>number of successful investigations.

>On what do you base that assertion?

If a confession is considered a priori evidence of a crime, then it would indeed raise the number of successful investigations. Torture anyone long enough and he will admit to anything; thus torture anyone long enough and your investigation will successfully result in a confession and subsequent conviction. So his statement is literally true.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

However, some argue that one of the reasons torture endures is that torture does indeed work in some instance to extract information/confession, if those who are being tortured are indeed guilty and provide details of crime/plot only the guilty party could produce.

Ah, the good old "some say." Who says? What evidence do they provide?

Quote

Richard Posner, a highly influential judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, further argues that "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used—and will be used—to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

Here's something you would realise if you had paid any attention to this thread - not only is torture not the only means to gain that information, it is demonstrably inferior to other means.

you wanted proof read thishttp://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

or thishttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/klein

torture does work, even the threat of torture works, the pirates are holding the crews of ships and threatening their harm if a ransom is not paid, that is torture and in some cases it is working. millions of $s in ransom has been paid.

[jakee 1,594]

Have you even read those links?

The second one states that torture does not work as an interrogation tool, the first one has McCain giving the enemy a mixture of true and false information under torture.

Quote

torture does work, even the threat of torture works, the pirates are holding the crews of ships and threatening their harm if a ransom is not paid, that is torture and in some cases it is working. millions of $s in ransom has been paid.

That's not torture, that's hostage taking. From what I've heard the hostages are often treated reasonably well. Secondly, the payouts are more about business than anything else. If someone has a ship worth $100M+ loaded with $100M+ of oil and they'll give it back to you for a few million bucks, what are you going to do?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Did you read the articles to which you linked?

The first unilaterraly asserts that torture is ineffective for interrogation:

“Exactly. As an interrogation tool, torture is a bust. But when it comes to social control, nothing works quite like torture.”

From the second, quoting Sen McCain's books: “McCain said: ‘I regret very much having done so. The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number.’” How long into his detainment was that? How much other/useless information was ‘confessed’ to beforehand? In the article that you cited, Sen McCain explicitly is quoted (from one of his books) as saying what torture obtained was of “no real use.”

That’s the best you can do?

One article that says torture is an instrument of state terror. Are you agreeing with the author that the US is a terrorist state? That’s what the article you linked says.

“Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there's a problem: No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool--least of all the people who practice it. Torture ‘doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives,’ CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced ‘nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques.’ The Army's own interrogation field manual states that force ‘can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.’”

The other is quoting from the same man who's referenced in the subject line as calling torture al Qa'eda's "greatest recruiting tool" and speaking likely to folks like you "... you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.”

More from Sen McCain

“I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer.

“Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively [i.e., no torture - nerdgirl], and he didn’t think they need to do anything else.

“My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.”

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

the pirates are holding the crews of ships and threatening their harm if a ransom is not paid, that is torture and in some cases it is working. millions of $s in ransom has been paid.

This is interesting ... not saying I think it's valid ... but trying to imagine the thought process/work through the argument.


Hostage-taking is illegal. Kidnapping is illegal. Piracy is illegal. (We're back to the Laws of Warfare, sea this time instead of land.) Illegal detention of civilians by non-state actors is illegal. I've never heard of anyone define or use any of those interchangably with torture before.

Basically you're expanding the definition of torture, yes?

Point of clarification that also goes to question of effectivenenss: are the ransoms in the Somali cases being paid because the shipowners want the cargo or are they concerned about the well-being crew? The answer depends on how cynical one is feeling ... Imo, both to some extent.

What has been the effect of the actions of the Somali pirates? Have their actions been effective in stopping maritime trade?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Did you read the articles to which you linked?

The first unilaterraly asserts that torture is ineffective for interrogation:

“Exactly. As an interrogation tool, torture is a bust. But when it comes to social control, nothing works quite like torture.”

From the second, quoting Sen McCain's books: “McCain said: ‘I regret very much having done so. The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number.’” How long into his detainment was that? How much other/useless information was ‘confessed’ to beforehand? In the article that you cited, Sen McCain explicitly is quoted (from one of his books) as saying what torture obtained was of “no real use.”

That’s the best you can do?

One article that says torture is an instrument of state terror. Are you agreeing with the author that the US is a terrorist state? That’s what the article you linked says.

“Yet despite this body of knowledge, torture continues to be debated in the United States as if it were merely a morally questionable way to extract information, not an instrument of state terror. But there's a problem: No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool--least of all the people who practice it. Torture ‘doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives,’ CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced ‘nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques.’ The Army's own interrogation field manual states that force ‘can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.’”

The other is quoting from the same man who's referenced in the subject line as calling torture al Qa'eda's "greatest recruiting tool" and speaking likely to folks like you "... you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.”

More from Sen McCain

“I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer.

“Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively [i.e., no torture - nerdgirl], and he didn’t think they need to do anything else.

“My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.”

VR/Marg

all I have been saying is that, under the right conditions, torture does work and in some conditions it can work for a positive outcome. I have never said we should use it as a first aproach to extract information or as a normal means to get info. If torture is needed to get information from a combatant and that information could save lives of our troops or allies then I support it.

I would expect it to to used by any military when the stakes are high. Would I like to be tortured? no but I would expect it and therefore I would probably talk before it happened unless I thought i was going to be killed anyway.

It would work on me. therefore torture would, in some cases, be a viable way of getting information.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I agree. "Imprisonment itself, even when relatively benign, is arguably a form of torture. This is implicit in our society using prison as the most dire legal form of both "punishment" and "deterrence," except for execution. Moreover, in the typical American prison, designed and run to maximize degradation, brutalization, and punishment, overt torture is the norm.

To me this is incorrect use of terminology:

you might call it torture if there was someone saying "Give me the info and I will make it stop and all the pain go away". Torture is in essence a negotiation (even if it's a brutal and unfair one) and not based on prior verdicts for past crimes.

If this is not the case, it is punishment - perhaps "cruel and unusual" -- but still punishment. Prisoners have no option of getting out of it by surrendering information or some other trade and what they endure has been determined at least implicitly by society.


T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

the pirates are holding the crews of ships and threatening their harm if a ransom is not paid, that is torture and in some cases it is working. millions of $s in ransom has been paid.

This is interesting ... not saying I think it's valid ... but trying to imagine the thought process/work through the argument.


Hostage-taking is illegal. Kidnapping is illegal. Piracy is illegal. (We're back to the Laws of Warfare, sea this time instead of land.) Illegal detention of civilians by non-state actors is illegal. I've never heard of anyone define or use any of those interchangably with torture before.

Basically you're expanding the definition of torture, yes?

Point of clarification that also goes to question of effectivenenss: are the ransoms in the Somali cases being paid because the shipowners want the cargo or are they concerned about the well-being crew? The answer depends on how cynical one is feeling ... Imo, both to some extent.

What has been the effect of the actions of the Somali pirates? Have their actions been effective in stopping maritime trade?

VR/Marg

they are not trying to stop trade, they want money to support their agenda. so the threat of hurting the crews of the ships is paying off because some ransoms have been paid.

I feel it is not torture that the people are against in this thread, it is the extent that the torture is taken to. Anything that is done to a person that is detramental their fisical or mental health to extract information is torture, even our courts torture people to extract information. How many people have been put in jail for contempt of court because they wouldn't give up the information in a trial? Isn't locking them up indefinately until they testify torture?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

>>but is effective in getting false confessions which might be useful for
>>political reasons for the officer and organization in question by raising the
>>number of successful investigations.

>On what do you base that assertion?

If a confession is considered a priori evidence of a crime, then it would indeed raise the number of successful investigations. Torture anyone long enough and he will admit to anything; thus torture anyone long enough and your investigation will successfully result in a confession and subsequent conviction. So his statement is literally true.

The problem with that scenario is that evidence gained by torture is inadmissible in court.

Per the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when asked during his Senate confirmation hearing on admissibility of evidence obtained through torture in a criminal prosecution:

“… the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled self- incrimination. And it's long been established that evidence that is obtained through torture is inadmissible in our courts. That's the governing principle.”

When further questioned as to whether his answer meant it would not be constitutional to admit evidence gained through torture against a criminal defendant, Alito responded:

“In all the contexts that I'm familiar with, that would be the answer.”

UK courts have also ruled evidence obtained from inadmissible. More scholarly reference.

Evidence obtained via torture is also not admissible via international law.

The only potential exception (outside of places like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, DPRK, etc … not law systems I advocate emulating) is the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It’s got a potential loophole that has yet to be tested. The Act explicitly excludes the use of statements obtained under torture but contains a ‘loophole’ allowing evidence obtained through “coercive interrogation” [which may or may not qualify as torture; it’s intentionally ambiguous, im-ever-h-but not legal scholar-o] as long as the statement is judged to be “reliable and possessing sufficient probative value.”

The Commission rules place further limits on statements made under “coercive interrogation” after the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in December 2005 -- evidence obtained *after* that date/after that law went into effect, regardless of where obtained, through the “use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” [i.e., torture, altho’ not necessarily coercive interrogation] is also not admissable.

So the argument that evidence obtained through torture after all the false confessions & 'gobbly-gook' is sifted might be an justification is highly problematic (to put it diplomatically).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

all I have been saying is that, under the right conditions, torture does work and in some conditions it can work for a positive outcome.

The information that you get will be unreliable. The counterproductiveness of the false info you will be getting will easily outweigh any benefit you will gain from the correct info you will obtain, and will actually make it much more difficult for you to find out which bits of info are correct. And all the while you are persuading more people to take up arms against you.

You seem to think that it's the case that in the really desperate situation, when it's really, really important, you can bring in torture and it'll definitely be one of those occasions where torture will give you the correct information. It's not like that.

Quote

If torture is needed to get information from a combatant and that information could save lives of our troops or allies then I support it.

But that situation is not going to happen. Classical interrogation will be a much better bet to get you that information than torture.

(This conversation is going down the exact same road as the one I suggested in my first point on this thread. You say you accept that torture is unreliable, and that classical interrogation is better, but you still want to use torture for those cases where we stand to lose the most by getting it wrong. It makes no fucking sense!)

Quote

I would expect it to to used by any military when the stakes are high.

Why!? It's an inferior technique! Why, when the stakes are high, would you not use the techniques you know to be better?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

all I have been saying is that, under the right conditions, torture does work and in some conditions it can work for a positive outcome.

The information that you get will be unreliable. The counterproductiveness of the false info you will be getting will easily outweigh any benefit you will gain from the correct info you will obtain, and will actually make it much more difficult for you to find out which bits of info are correct. And all the while you are persuading more people to take up arms against you.

You seem to think that it's the case that in the really desperate situation, when it's really, really important, you can bring in torture and it'll definitely be one of those occasions where torture will give you the correct information. It's not like that.

Quote

If torture is needed to get information from a combatant and that information could save lives of our troops or allies then I support it.

But that situation is not going to happen. Classical interrogation will be a much better bet to get you that information than torture.

(This conversation is going down the exact same road as the one I suggested in my first point on this thread. You say you accept that torture is unreliable, and that classical interrogation is better, but you still want to use torture for those cases where we stand to lose the most by getting it wrong. It makes no fucking sense!)

Quote

I would expect it to to used by any military when the stakes are high.

Why!? It's an inferior technique! Why, when the stakes are high, would you not use the techniques you know to be better?

name something better that isn't torture.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

they are not trying to stop trade, they want money to support their agenda. so the threat of hurting the crews of the ships is paying off because some ransoms have been paid.

That's not true.

The ransom is paid to get the ship back, not to stop them hurting the crew. Take the MV Sirius Star - $15M ransom demand for a ship and cargo worth well over $200M. It's economic.

"Meanwhile, a pirate calling himself Daybed told the BBC they had no plans to harm the 25 crew members taken hostage,"

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

all I have been saying is that, under the right conditions, torture does work and in some conditions it can work for a positive outcome.

Can you provide any evidence to support that?

That's what has been repeatedly asked. The two links you provided this morning don't.

What are the right conditions? How do you determine that?

And that's the problem. By extentsion of the argument you and others employ, advocacy of Mike's [mnealtx] facetious/straw man ""bring in the comfy cushions" interrogation method is just as likely an effective mechanism as torture. Why does that not have as strong of an advocacy sector as those who want to employ torture? Why is that seen is silly or naive but torture is not?

Quote

If torture is needed to get information from a combatant and that information could save lives of our troops or allies then I support it.

But what if it doesn't? What if all the evidence unequivocally indicates that it doesn't do that? That instead it's putting them at more risk, costing more, and harming US national interests ... why do you want to hang onto that? Why?

I'm resistant to [quade]'s explanation.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

name something better that isn't torture.

Traditional interrogation methods.

US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file) states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force”

“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.”

“The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.”

Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective.

FM 35-42 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.”


The United States Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association (composed of active duty and retired Marines) notes:

“…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them.”

The folks with operational experience, i.e., military and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors, FBI); all the former Secretaries of State including GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret); Sen John McCain; the Intelligence Science Board; the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); multiple former CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) officers have been explicit on the non-effectiveness of torture in interrogation and opposition to it.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

name something better that isn't torture.

Oh for fucks sake. Now I know you are just acting the fool.

Go back through this thread and read through nerdgirl's posts. Hell, just look at the ones on this page.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Anything that is done to a person that is detramental their fisical or mental health to extract information is torture, even our courts torture people to extract information. How many people have been put in jail for contempt of court because they wouldn't give up the information in a trial? Isn't locking them up indefinately until they testify torture?

No.

Be careful with this argument, it's leads quickly to some conclusions/implcations that I highly doubt you support. Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction is not torture. The people who detain legally before trial and who issue tickets that are 'fiscally detrimental' (police officers) and who detain legally after trial (local, State, and federal officers of the court and prison wardens/officers) are not torturers.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

But what if it doesn't? What if all the evidence unequivocally indicates that it doesn't do that? That instead it's putting them at more risk, costing more, and harming US national interests ... why do you want to hang onto that? Why?

Truthiness.

Torture feels like it should work. It's solid, it's easily understandable, it's supported by a hundred Hollywood movies. What've you got, a bunch of old guys writing stuff in reports and journals. Who wants to read that, it's boring! What they say might be true, but it's not truthy.

This thread is beginning to physically sicken me.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

all I have been saying is that, under the right conditions, torture does work and in some conditions it can work for a positive outcome.

Can you provide any evidence to support that?

That's what has been repeatedly asked. The two links you provided this morning don't.

What are the right conditions? How do you determine that?

And that's the problem. By extentsion of the argument you and others employ, advocacy of Mike's [mnealtx] facetious/straw man ""bring in the comfy cushions" interrogation method is just as likely an effective mechanism as torture. Why does that not have as strong of an advocacy sector as those who want to employ torture? Why is that seen is silly or naive but torture is not?

Quote

If torture is needed to get information from a combatant and that information could save lives of our troops or allies then I support it.

But what if it doesn't? What if all the evidence unequivocally indicates that it doesn't do that? That instead it's putting them at more risk, costing more, and harming US national interests ... why do you want to hang onto that? Why?

Quote

if some one put me on a comfy couch and asked me questions they wouldn't get anything out of me unless i wanted to say something. if I just seen one of my buddies beat to death in a slow deliberate manner and knew I was next i would probably start talking.

• Quote

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Anything that is done to a person that is detramental their fisical or mental health to extract information is torture, even our courts torture people to extract information. How many people have been put in jail for contempt of court because they wouldn't give up the information in a trial? Isn't locking them up indefinately until they testify torture?

No.

Be careful with this argument, it's leads quickly to some conclusions/implcations that I highly doubt you support. Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction is not torture. The people who detain legally before trial and who issue tickets that are 'fiscally detrimental' (police officers) and who detain legally after trial (local, State, and federal officers of the court and prison wardens/officers) are not torturers.

VR/Marg

just because you give it a politically correct name to sooth your soul doesn't mean it isn't a form of torture.