kallend 2,146 #126 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote 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. What you believe to be true based on your feelings, and what has been proven to be true by experienced interrogators, are NOT the same.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #127 December 17, 2008 QuoteTorture feels like it should work. It's solid, it's easily understandable, it's supported by a hundred Hollywood movies. And it's just plain good ole' fun. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #128 December 17, 2008 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. Thanks for the honest answer -- as I'm reading it, you're talking about using your own intuition as guide. As far as the "comfy chair" scenario ... bringing in prayers rugs and figs has worked in at least one 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. ... and worked in one real world interrogation of an al Qa'eda member: L'Houssaine Kherchtou, aka "Joe the Moroccan," who was a member of the alQa'eda cell that bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi. He eventually became the US government's "star witness" in the criminal case: "Upon his return to Morocco, Kherchtou was, at the U.S. government's request, taken into custody and immediately brought to a Rabat safe house, where an array of FBI agents including Cloonan, and assistant U.S. attorneys led by Patrick Fitzgerald, were waiting. "The coming days, Cloonan said, were probably the most comfortable either he or Kherchtou has ever spent, utterly antithetical to tales from Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and elsewhere involving shackles, beatings, weatherboardings, genital electric shocks, and menstrual smearing that have become ubiquitous in the past year. "'The setting was beautiful,' Cloonan recalled. 'It was this grand house with stables out back, gazelles bouncing in the background, palm trees, three-course meals -- I was probably more in danger of getting gout from all the rich food than anything else while I was there.' “'We advised [Kherchtou] of his rights. We told him he could have a lawyer anytime, and that he could pray at any time he wanted. We were letting the Moroccans sit in on this, and they were dumbfounded.'” "The agents and prosecutors did not anticipate ease in the task before them. Simply getting information out of a person can be a formidable challenge; persuading him or her to not only give up information but to go through a lengthy process in which he or she will repeat it again and again -- including in an open American court, with no assurance of plea bargain -- is even more daunting. But 10 days later, Kherchtou had not only revealed much but was New York bound, destined to become the prosecution's star witness in securing the convictions of four al-Qaeda terrorists. “'We spent a lot of time talking about his family, and how disillusioned he was based on the brothers' treatment of them, and from there he really began to open up,' Cloonan recalled. 'The critical moment was when Pat Fitzgerald told Joe, 'Here's the deal: You will come to the U.S. voluntarily; you will plead guilty to conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals abroad; your exposure is anywhere from zero to life, no promises." I instinctively reached for my briefcase, figuring it was over, but then I added something. I looked at him and I said, "Before you answer, I think you should go pray. After 10 days with us, I think you have a sense of who we are and what we're about -- you know you would not be treated this way by other folks. You may go to prison, but you have the chance to start your life over again, to get rid of this anxiety, to stop running. And I think you should do this for your wife and children."' “'So he went off to pray. Meanwhile, the colonel from the Moroccan internal service just looked at us like we were from Mars. But Joe came back and said, "OK."' "Kherchtou was brought to New York; anything in further interviews or proffer sessions deemed of immediate importance was shared with the CIA; four terrorists were convicted; a detailed public record providing detailed insight into al-Qaeda -- including the group's interest in using suicide-piloted planes as bombers -- was produced." Now, the impressive results of Jack Cloonan on stopping the millenium bombing and interrogating Kherchtou "Joe the Morrocan" may not be typical. I don't mean to represent them as such. They are, however, two verifiable, real-world (not hypothetical) cases showing how the 'comfy chair' method worked very successfully. (NB: Just to be explicit, I'm not advocating "comfy chair" methods as exclusive methods, just using these real-world cases to illustrate the problems with the argument). In the intelligence community, there is a concept called "mirror imaging," i.e., we assume that the enemy or who-ever one is spying on responds/thinks/behaves/reacts like us. It's 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #129 December 17, 2008 QuoteCan 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? BUT BUT BUT..... it works on TV He wont take the evidence presented... its like trying to change the religious fanatic to see ANY point of view other than what they BELIEVE is true. Having actually worked in an interrogation room I have tried to point out to people that what is taught so our people can resist those techniques is not what should be used to actually extract any useful information. Now.. if your captors want to get their little stiffies on ( ie they enjoy inflicting pain and suffering and derive PLEASURE from it) and want to tag team beat a human body into a pulp.. and dislocate joints... that can and does happen. IT is NOT supposed to be done BY the US. I can only hope that our people are better than that. We are SUPPOSED to be on a higher moral ground. But then again its been 30 years since I worked in those rooms. I know what worked for me..... yet it seems so many of our uber conservative fellow posters wish to sink to the lowest base nature despite most of them being "morals" voters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #130 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote 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. just because you give it a politically correct name to sooth your soul doesn't mean it isn't a form of torture. Huh? What's the politically correct name I used? Really? "Police officer" is politically correct these days? You really think that the US criminal, civil, and military justice system is akin to torture? (Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're trolling?) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #131 December 17, 2008 "Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #132 December 17, 2008 Quote"Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. HUH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #133 December 17, 2008 I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #134 December 17, 2008 well i guess what has been proven to be true by experienced interrogators has not really been proven then, since they didn't gather information from all possible sorces. therefore only the cases they have used for their conclusions show that torture is unreliable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #135 December 17, 2008 Quote I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. If I have a broken tool.. I return it to Sears as soon as I can. Others .. with broken tools.. get blue pills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #136 December 17, 2008 Quote I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. If your definition of torture is Quote"Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. then we are in agreement. Torture is not merely as you describe, "a tool in the tool box", the "tool" as you call it has been repeatedly shown (see the links throughout this thread): to be ineffective; to increase risk to US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, deployed US civilians and Americans abroad - more terrorists equals more risk; to be counter to US strategic interests; to not be necessary for the 'ticking-time bomb' scenario; and is al Qa'eda's "greatest recruiting tool," *why* do you want to pursue it? What are the "right" conditions? The methodology you are arguing for is counter to the goals you assert. What you are arguing for is making it more difficult for achieving US strategic goals. Why would you want to pursue that? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #137 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuote I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. If I have a broken tool.. I return it to Sears as soon as I can. and they give you another one that is identical Others .. with broken tools.. get blue pills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #138 December 17, 2008 Quoteif 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. Yes, I imagine that's exactly how things would progress. Especially if you didn't know anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #139 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteif 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. Yes, I imagine that's exactly how things would progress. Especially if you didn't know anything. Hmm ... I don't know anything. I just watched my friend get tortured to death. I start talking but I don't know anything so the information is incorrect. The torturers use the incorrect information to detain someone else who doesn't know anything. Someone else watches their friend get tortured to death. Someone else starts talking but doesn't know anything so the information is incorrect. The torturers use the incorrect information to detain someone else who doesn't know anything ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #140 December 17, 2008 QuoteIf I have a broken tool.. I return it to Sears as soon as I can. and they give you another one that is identical Others .. with broken tools.. get blue pills. But its best not to use it in the same way that broke it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fasted3 0 #141 December 17, 2008 You are talking about two different things. 1. A policy of using torture, and 2. An act of torture. I will agree that the first does not work. Do you doubt that the second ever has?But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #142 December 17, 2008 Quote You are talking about two different things. 1. A policy of using torture, and 2. An act of torture. I will agree that the first does not work. Do you doubt that the second ever has? Given the policy seen in the Al Quada handbooks that have been found... I seriously doubt the one on the recieving end gave very much useful information. On the other hand.. the guy who is not even an insurgent/terrorist that has been ratted out by a rival tribal member because they got paid for names of bad guys.. or the guy is in different religious sect.. and who doesn't know squat anyway.. I am sure that tortureing him revealed VAST amounts of usabale information Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #143 December 17, 2008 Quote "Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. If the only way to justify your position is to redefine the word to mean something other than its accepted definition, then I guess you are conceding.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fasted3 0 #144 December 17, 2008 You didn't answer the question. 10,000 examples of it not working do not prove that it never has. I am pointing this out to establish the problem with saying it never works. The people that are arguing with you are using a different definition and each side keeps repeating: 1 never works, (policy) wrong 2 sometimes works, (individual case) and on and on. Therin also lies the belief that it just may be useful in the right circumstances, as shown by some posts. They are thinking of an individual case, I think, while others are looking at the big picture. I take the position that it is morally wrong whether it works or not. Simple.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #145 December 17, 2008 >The problem with that scenario is that evidence gained by torture is inadmissible in court. I agree. I am translating it to the original poster's world, in which false confessions gained under torture might be used to "prove" that an investigation has been effective. In the real world, of course, it is both ineffective and illegal, and cannot be used to prove any such thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #146 December 17, 2008 QuoteI take the position that it is morally wrong whether it works or not. Simple. I take the same stance and find it morally reprehensible, especially for the US to use techniques that other countries HAVE used against our captives in the past. Even the Nazi's who interrogated downed US airmen upon their capture in occupied Europe in WW II knew that it was far better to use other techniques than physical torture against our airmen and that knowledge was taught and made part of the SERE training. But the experiences of POW's in NK in the 50's and others experiences with Soviet techniques as well as what the NVA interrogators did in the 60's were also incorporated into the training. There is a lot of information out there that was used to create the training for our people from the debriefings of early release POW's even before the flood of them in 1973. What is taught to our people is classified... but suffice it to say that a lot has been learned from the people we have fought against. Different cultures have different tolerance levels for torture... and what is deemed torture. I would prefer my culture to not sink to the level of other cultures when so much is known about the outcomes of using it. Torture as a political tool is widespread in the world, it’s used as a control mechanism more than being used to obtain information. Some practitioners are very skilled in the application of pain to bring about the desired results, but you can achieve the same kinds of goals without the crude methods used by the sadistic perverts who revel in its use. Those who advocate its use, fall into that same classification just for thinking it’s ok to torture another human being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #147 December 17, 2008 >"Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used >to get someone to testify. This thread has become a form of torture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fasted3 0 #148 December 17, 2008 Quote This thread has become a form of torture. Nice PA against the participants of this forum. Your one warning. But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #149 December 17, 2008 QuoteYou didn't answer the question. 10,000 examples of it not working do not prove that it never has.. A stopped clock is right twice a day. We do not use stopped clocks in our daily life because the information obtained cannot be trusted to be accurate even if occasionally it is accurate. Same is true of torture. Even if sometimes in individual cases it produces accurate intel, the intel cannot be trusted and so as an operational procedure it is completely useless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fasted3 0 #150 December 17, 2008 You make a good case against the policy. My point about individual cases was not what you think. One: As has already been mentioned, if the only goal is to obtain a signed confession, it works. Most people will sign anything. Ask McCain. Notice I am not saying the signature is worth anything, but if somebody wants it bad enough, they will most likely get it. Two: Somebody has something and won't tell you where it is. You can go see if they tell the truth. And keep coming back if they lie. Depends what it is, but a lot would give it up. These are just a couple of examples of where the average person would expect torture to be effective. You can pick at them if you want, but my point is that examples can be found. This leads to the thought that under sufficient provocation, to 'save the world,' it may be an option. Sure, ineffective as a policy, but 'just this once.' The best defense against this is to base your argument taking this thinking into account. Just saying 'it never works,' goes against common sense. Saying it's morally wrong, otoh, leaves little room for argument.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
skydyvr 0 #127 December 17, 2008 QuoteTorture feels like it should work. It's solid, it's easily understandable, it's supported by a hundred Hollywood movies. And it's just plain good ole' fun. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #128 December 17, 2008 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. Thanks for the honest answer -- as I'm reading it, you're talking about using your own intuition as guide. As far as the "comfy chair" scenario ... bringing in prayers rugs and figs has worked in at least one 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. ... and worked in one real world interrogation of an al Qa'eda member: L'Houssaine Kherchtou, aka "Joe the Moroccan," who was a member of the alQa'eda cell that bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi. He eventually became the US government's "star witness" in the criminal case: "Upon his return to Morocco, Kherchtou was, at the U.S. government's request, taken into custody and immediately brought to a Rabat safe house, where an array of FBI agents including Cloonan, and assistant U.S. attorneys led by Patrick Fitzgerald, were waiting. "The coming days, Cloonan said, were probably the most comfortable either he or Kherchtou has ever spent, utterly antithetical to tales from Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and elsewhere involving shackles, beatings, weatherboardings, genital electric shocks, and menstrual smearing that have become ubiquitous in the past year. "'The setting was beautiful,' Cloonan recalled. 'It was this grand house with stables out back, gazelles bouncing in the background, palm trees, three-course meals -- I was probably more in danger of getting gout from all the rich food than anything else while I was there.' “'We advised [Kherchtou] of his rights. We told him he could have a lawyer anytime, and that he could pray at any time he wanted. We were letting the Moroccans sit in on this, and they were dumbfounded.'” "The agents and prosecutors did not anticipate ease in the task before them. Simply getting information out of a person can be a formidable challenge; persuading him or her to not only give up information but to go through a lengthy process in which he or she will repeat it again and again -- including in an open American court, with no assurance of plea bargain -- is even more daunting. But 10 days later, Kherchtou had not only revealed much but was New York bound, destined to become the prosecution's star witness in securing the convictions of four al-Qaeda terrorists. “'We spent a lot of time talking about his family, and how disillusioned he was based on the brothers' treatment of them, and from there he really began to open up,' Cloonan recalled. 'The critical moment was when Pat Fitzgerald told Joe, 'Here's the deal: You will come to the U.S. voluntarily; you will plead guilty to conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals abroad; your exposure is anywhere from zero to life, no promises." I instinctively reached for my briefcase, figuring it was over, but then I added something. I looked at him and I said, "Before you answer, I think you should go pray. After 10 days with us, I think you have a sense of who we are and what we're about -- you know you would not be treated this way by other folks. You may go to prison, but you have the chance to start your life over again, to get rid of this anxiety, to stop running. And I think you should do this for your wife and children."' “'So he went off to pray. Meanwhile, the colonel from the Moroccan internal service just looked at us like we were from Mars. But Joe came back and said, "OK."' "Kherchtou was brought to New York; anything in further interviews or proffer sessions deemed of immediate importance was shared with the CIA; four terrorists were convicted; a detailed public record providing detailed insight into al-Qaeda -- including the group's interest in using suicide-piloted planes as bombers -- was produced." Now, the impressive results of Jack Cloonan on stopping the millenium bombing and interrogating Kherchtou "Joe the Morrocan" may not be typical. I don't mean to represent them as such. They are, however, two verifiable, real-world (not hypothetical) cases showing how the 'comfy chair' method worked very successfully. (NB: Just to be explicit, I'm not advocating "comfy chair" methods as exclusive methods, just using these real-world cases to illustrate the problems with the argument). In the intelligence community, there is a concept called "mirror imaging," i.e., we assume that the enemy or who-ever one is spying on responds/thinks/behaves/reacts like us. It's 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #129 December 17, 2008 QuoteCan 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? BUT BUT BUT..... it works on TV He wont take the evidence presented... its like trying to change the religious fanatic to see ANY point of view other than what they BELIEVE is true. Having actually worked in an interrogation room I have tried to point out to people that what is taught so our people can resist those techniques is not what should be used to actually extract any useful information. Now.. if your captors want to get their little stiffies on ( ie they enjoy inflicting pain and suffering and derive PLEASURE from it) and want to tag team beat a human body into a pulp.. and dislocate joints... that can and does happen. IT is NOT supposed to be done BY the US. I can only hope that our people are better than that. We are SUPPOSED to be on a higher moral ground. But then again its been 30 years since I worked in those rooms. I know what worked for me..... yet it seems so many of our uber conservative fellow posters wish to sink to the lowest base nature despite most of them being "morals" voters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #130 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote 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. just because you give it a politically correct name to sooth your soul doesn't mean it isn't a form of torture. Huh? What's the politically correct name I used? Really? "Police officer" is politically correct these days? You really think that the US criminal, civil, and military justice system is akin to torture? (Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're trolling?) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #131 December 17, 2008 "Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #132 December 17, 2008 Quote"Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. HUH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #133 December 17, 2008 I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #134 December 17, 2008 well i guess what has been proven to be true by experienced interrogators has not really been proven then, since they didn't gather information from all possible sorces. therefore only the cases they have used for their conclusions show that torture is unreliable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #135 December 17, 2008 Quote I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. If I have a broken tool.. I return it to Sears as soon as I can. Others .. with broken tools.. get blue pills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #136 December 17, 2008 Quote I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. If your definition of torture is Quote"Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. then we are in agreement. Torture is not merely as you describe, "a tool in the tool box", the "tool" as you call it has been repeatedly shown (see the links throughout this thread): to be ineffective; to increase risk to US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, deployed US civilians and Americans abroad - more terrorists equals more risk; to be counter to US strategic interests; to not be necessary for the 'ticking-time bomb' scenario; and is al Qa'eda's "greatest recruiting tool," *why* do you want to pursue it? What are the "right" conditions? The methodology you are arguing for is counter to the goals you assert. What you are arguing for is making it more difficult for achieving US strategic goals. Why would you want to pursue that? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #137 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuote I never said that simpler, nicer ways shouldn't be used first. I feel that we shouldn't take one of the tools out of the toolbox. If I have a broken tool.. I return it to Sears as soon as I can. and they give you another one that is identical Others .. with broken tools.. get blue pills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #138 December 17, 2008 Quoteif 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. Yes, I imagine that's exactly how things would progress. Especially if you didn't know anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #139 December 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteif 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. Yes, I imagine that's exactly how things would progress. Especially if you didn't know anything. Hmm ... I don't know anything. I just watched my friend get tortured to death. I start talking but I don't know anything so the information is incorrect. The torturers use the incorrect information to detain someone else who doesn't know anything. Someone else watches their friend get tortured to death. Someone else starts talking but doesn't know anything so the information is incorrect. The torturers use the incorrect information to detain someone else who doesn't know anything ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #140 December 17, 2008 QuoteIf I have a broken tool.. I return it to Sears as soon as I can. and they give you another one that is identical Others .. with broken tools.. get blue pills. But its best not to use it in the same way that broke it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #141 December 17, 2008 You are talking about two different things. 1. A policy of using torture, and 2. An act of torture. I will agree that the first does not work. Do you doubt that the second ever has?But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #142 December 17, 2008 Quote You are talking about two different things. 1. A policy of using torture, and 2. An act of torture. I will agree that the first does not work. Do you doubt that the second ever has? Given the policy seen in the Al Quada handbooks that have been found... I seriously doubt the one on the recieving end gave very much useful information. On the other hand.. the guy who is not even an insurgent/terrorist that has been ratted out by a rival tribal member because they got paid for names of bad guys.. or the guy is in different religious sect.. and who doesn't know squat anyway.. I am sure that tortureing him revealed VAST amounts of usabale information Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #143 December 17, 2008 Quote "Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used to get someone to testify. If the only way to justify your position is to redefine the word to mean something other than its accepted definition, then I guess you are conceding.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #144 December 17, 2008 You didn't answer the question. 10,000 examples of it not working do not prove that it never has. I am pointing this out to establish the problem with saying it never works. The people that are arguing with you are using a different definition and each side keeps repeating: 1 never works, (policy) wrong 2 sometimes works, (individual case) and on and on. Therin also lies the belief that it just may be useful in the right circumstances, as shown by some posts. They are thinking of an individual case, I think, while others are looking at the big picture. I take the position that it is morally wrong whether it works or not. Simple.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #145 December 17, 2008 >The problem with that scenario is that evidence gained by torture is inadmissible in court. I agree. I am translating it to the original poster's world, in which false confessions gained under torture might be used to "prove" that an investigation has been effective. In the real world, of course, it is both ineffective and illegal, and cannot be used to prove any such thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #146 December 17, 2008 QuoteI take the position that it is morally wrong whether it works or not. Simple. I take the same stance and find it morally reprehensible, especially for the US to use techniques that other countries HAVE used against our captives in the past. Even the Nazi's who interrogated downed US airmen upon their capture in occupied Europe in WW II knew that it was far better to use other techniques than physical torture against our airmen and that knowledge was taught and made part of the SERE training. But the experiences of POW's in NK in the 50's and others experiences with Soviet techniques as well as what the NVA interrogators did in the 60's were also incorporated into the training. There is a lot of information out there that was used to create the training for our people from the debriefings of early release POW's even before the flood of them in 1973. What is taught to our people is classified... but suffice it to say that a lot has been learned from the people we have fought against. Different cultures have different tolerance levels for torture... and what is deemed torture. I would prefer my culture to not sink to the level of other cultures when so much is known about the outcomes of using it. Torture as a political tool is widespread in the world, it’s used as a control mechanism more than being used to obtain information. Some practitioners are very skilled in the application of pain to bring about the desired results, but you can achieve the same kinds of goals without the crude methods used by the sadistic perverts who revel in its use. Those who advocate its use, fall into that same classification just for thinking it’s ok to torture another human being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #147 December 17, 2008 >"Legal detention under criminal jurisdiction " is a form of torture when used >to get someone to testify. This thread has become a form of torture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #148 December 17, 2008 Quote This thread has become a form of torture. Nice PA against the participants of this forum. Your one warning. But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #149 December 17, 2008 QuoteYou didn't answer the question. 10,000 examples of it not working do not prove that it never has.. A stopped clock is right twice a day. We do not use stopped clocks in our daily life because the information obtained cannot be trusted to be accurate even if occasionally it is accurate. Same is true of torture. Even if sometimes in individual cases it produces accurate intel, the intel cannot be trusted and so as an operational procedure it is completely useless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #150 December 17, 2008 You make a good case against the policy. My point about individual cases was not what you think. One: As has already been mentioned, if the only goal is to obtain a signed confession, it works. Most people will sign anything. Ask McCain. Notice I am not saying the signature is worth anything, but if somebody wants it bad enough, they will most likely get it. Two: Somebody has something and won't tell you where it is. You can go see if they tell the truth. And keep coming back if they lie. Depends what it is, but a lot would give it up. These are just a couple of examples of where the average person would expect torture to be effective. You can pick at them if you want, but my point is that examples can be found. This leads to the thought that under sufficient provocation, to 'save the world,' it may be an option. Sure, ineffective as a policy, but 'just this once.' The best defense against this is to base your argument taking this thinking into account. Just saying 'it never works,' goes against common sense. Saying it's morally wrong, otoh, leaves little room for argument.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
