But it doesn't - the report clearly states that no suspects who were tortured revealed any new information - in fact they made shit up which the CIA then wasted time investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
But it doesn't - the report clearly states that no suspects who were tortured revealed any new information - in fact they made shit up which the CIA then wasted time investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Before torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Definitely before torture.
Not sure about that really, if it is a nessecary evil so be it is what I am leaning to. It may be wrong but being wrong is better than letting much worse things just happen because you just aren't capable of torturing someone. I am glad it's not up to me to decide and that I can live in my comfortable bliss. Fully knowing that it happens regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Yeah someone will probably say anything, especially after not having slept. I don't know where things go too far really, depends on considerationsQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Like institutionalized torture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Do you read what you write?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The interesting thing is, the CIA's studies from the 1960's found torture to not be effective.
It comes up from time to time as a desire from someone desperate in administration but the results are always the same: no new intelligence or simply false intelligence.
I'm willing to bet the "push" came from outside.
Yeah, and I don't like what I wrote. But I can accept that sometimes it's 'whatever means possible' in certain scenarios. It's no dark fantasy of mine, I am pretty sure I could never torture someone myself, but I can accept it being a necesary evil when the stakes are really high.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Fragony, sometimes your arguments come off as extremely lightweight...
In this case, it seems like you live in a world directed by some Hollywood guy, rather than the real world the rest of us live in.
It's a shame, really.
The question is not whether or not it works -- it would not have been used throughout history if it were utterly ineffective -- but as to whether or not it works in any way more effectively than "standard" interrogation methods. How can you justify using something so dehumanizing if it doesn't in some manner add to the speed or the efficacy of the interrogation? This report, and a number of studies since those of the 1960s, suggest that it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I know that Kads, I am not sure of them myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
The push came from outside. Finding willing people on the inside was probably easy. I mean, if those people in charge of you, used to work with the phoenix program in Vietnam and thought it was a good idea, but not implemented hard enough, your judgement about torture is going to lapse a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
You bet it did. By someone with something to sell. New torture software or Cheney had the thumbscrew concession.
edit: I oppose torture on two grounds. 1st it goes against the principals this country was founded upon. 2nd that it is legal to us on US Citizens under NDAA.
This country has used it before on its own citizens. I can see it happening again. It ain’t the terrorists that worry me.
Is there any documented report of a ticking bomb stopped by torture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
..................................................................................Quote:
Originally Posted by Report summary summary
Aside from the absurdity and disgrace of torturing someone in the defence of democracy and freedom; even if it did actually provide useful information, wouldn't there still be a backlash in the long run? Having your fellow countryman, friend or family member treated like this isn't exacly going to make you less inclined to sympathize with the al-Qaeda, is it?
I don't believe that bombs react to torture very much....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Nor do I, however, we always heard from the pro-torture, what if ticking bomb...bla bla bla. Goes with what is your family is in danger...
Never with what if YOU are the one tortured because you met the wrong person, or were at the wrong place...
In most sensible countries, people whose families are in danger/involved with some "case", are not allowed to handle the situation anyway, precisely because people do a lot of wrong things when they are concerned like that. Most people would do a lot if their family were in danger, but if that were our standard for policing, governing and certain other everyday tasks, we'd be in huge trouble...
Or to say it more precisely for Fragony, our "values" would be worse than what is commonly understood to be sharia law.
Don't want it to be normal, but as a last resort in an exceptionally brutal scenario, I would understand why it was done. Not that I think it helps mind you.
i have no problem in principle with breaking terrorist fingers if it is necessary to save civilian lives.
that said:
it has to be effective in releasing the desired intelligence
it has to be more effective than alternative techniques
it should never be sanctioned by society, and thus only used by government illicitly under specific circumstances where it is deemed essential
however:
it does not appear to be particularly effective
it does not appear to be more effective than alternative techniques
it does not appear to have been possible to prevent institutionalisation of enhanced interrogation techniques, regardless of the lack of sanction
therefore, i will not publicly condone the practice of torture... even if in private i'm fine with the idea of its use in a specific circumstance as the only method to reach a specific desired end.
You know you reached an argumental low when a socialist swede have to tell you that that, in no way, is a power the state should be trusted to handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, how damn hard can it be to get?
You can EITHER torture OR be seen as normal/nice.
There is just no effin way in seven hells that a state can run torture programs, AND claim to be on the side of "good".
I of course understand that it is a hard pill to swallow for USAnians, realizing their "home of the free", the democratic bulwark on earth... Is completely rotten from within.
Shame on anyone trying to defend torture. It is by all definitions a human LOW when one cause another human being pain in order to force what one wants.
no, it is simple recognition that britain run's an activist foriegn policy heavily bent around global special forces operations.
we are busting into huts in remote places on a daily basis, and i have no doubt a few fingers get broken here and there.
i simply draw the line between this and a state sanctioned program of internment and interrogation that includes torture.
but let me be clear; i do not want to live in a society that condones its government doing this.
Uhhh... So if I read you right, you are OK as long as the population just recognize the torture their nation commit, as long as they don't condone it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I don't even know where to begin. C'mon, you yourself must see the glaring holes in this line of thought.
The government doesn't have to tell the people.
The British can just trust their king/queen to do it only to filthy foreigners and everything will be fine.
Never beaten someone up? Never throwed a single punch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
All right: My aunt, from my father’s side, was tortured by the Milice, the French Gestapo. No need for details. The fact is she was not, repeat not, involve in the Resistance. Never. She didn’t know my father was, or the neighbour’s family (my grand-father -mother’s side-) was.
The Nazi had good reason to torture as some were blowing-up their trains, helped Allies pilots to escape and gave a lot of knowledge about their move, numbers and units, cutting their communication lines, and killing German Occupiers, time to time.
But it was completely useless.
The Gestapo did torture resistant with local success, but the greatest success against French Resistance was achieved by infiltration of the Abwehr (Admiral Canaris), not by Heinrich Gestapo, which was much more successful in deporting children.
The only time torture worked was against political militants (i.e. students) to tell they were socialist/communists, or unionists, and done. Indonesia did it. What a great success, indeed, to torture teenagers/young adults to confess. Same can be said for Chile, Argentina and others democratic states under Pinochet, Videla, or Franco’s Spain.
I don't believe torture actually works, but it's a moral dillema worthy of consideration. I am not convinced that it's always wrong. I can totally see how it can be the lesser of two evils sometimes.
Too much knicker twistage, looking for black and white moral certainties in a muddy world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I do not want to reach this point:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...iers-told.html
If it negatively affects our foreign policy.
As noted previously; i do not believe it is generally effective, or more effective than alternative methods given time and space.
It is healthy that society at large should reject torture, and be outraged if their government is caught doing it.
I approve wholeheartedly of this attitude, and remain delighted that government fears being caught engaged in immoral acts... even if i am more tolerant of them myself.
It's a muddy world, i don't expect cleanly polarised moral choices. That purity of soul is an option for nations that make the best of the world as they see it, and decidedly not for nations who seek to change the world around them.
^ what he says
This is internally illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If it is not more efficacious on some level -- then it should not be done as the costs, moral and physical, are known to be higher. Would you spend 5 Euros for an Ice-Cream that you could purchase across the street for 3.50 Euros?
Unless it is demonstrably better at extracting information than are other methods -- and the best that can be said is the it works equally well, not better -- than how can it be rational to endure the greater moral cost to yourself and your personnel (ignore the victim as a presumed "bad guy" if you wish)?
And if you and/or your personnel would NOT endure a greater moral cost in implementing "enhanced interrogation methods," than you would be PRECISELY the kinds of persons who should not be entrusted with that power as you would both enjoy it too much (and therefore do it improperly and denigrate the information validity) and be inclined to make it normal practice.
I bear no love for the persons who engineered the butchery of 9-11-01 or who believe that beheading a journalist somehow constitutes valid political action.
However, as R.G.H. Siu once wrote, "cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." Throwing tantrums is not adult behavior.
Weren't several of the tortured people innocent?