No Studies on Efficacy of Torture

One of the pillars of the pro-torture backroomers is that torture is efficient, when used properly. Apparently there is no data to back that up.

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon's senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

Kleinman wrote that intelligence gathered with coercion is sometimes inaccurate or false, noting that isolation, a tactic U.S. officials have used regularly, causes "profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort" and can "significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

Full study can be read here.

Admittedly, "no evidence" is not the same as "it doesn't work," but I think it ought to be a factor when one feels all rah-rah about torturing another human being. The ultimate point of torture is torture. This is something our enemies understand very well. They aren't trying to get intel or secrets; they're inflicting pain and death as ends within themselves.

As evidence, I offer the Al Qaeda Torture Manual. Not safe for work, not safe for kids, not safe for your peace of mind.

That manual is scary, almost like they've been watching episodes of "Jackass".

Wasn't that the manual that we found when we rescued 42 Iraqis from a Al Qaeda torture/re-education house? I really see no comparison between waterboarding someone like KSM vs torturing people as illustrated above until they agree to strap bombs to themselves. I'm sure waterboarding can be horrific, but given the choice I'd choose it any day, everyday when compared to anything they have illustrated in their manual. The link goes on to show that Al Qaeda apparently is following their manual to the letter.

I suppose the silver lining, if there is one, is that US forces were apparently tipped off to this torture chamber by local Iraqis. That's a step, however small, in the right direction.

Quote:

---

"significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately."

---

Brings to mind:

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
"How many do you want me to see?"

Ends don't justify means - means taint the ends, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

That manual is scary, almost like they've been watching episodes of "Jackass".

---

Hey now, "Jackass" is one of my guilty pleasures, lets not start slamming one of the greatest TV programs of all time. :yes:

What strikes me most is, that experts, studies whatever seem to conclude torture has no lasting value by way of usable data.

Yet since man has been at war, its been employed, torture seems to me to be a human condition of war along the lines of "to the victors go the spoils" no matter how gruesome those spoils may be.

Even in the enlightened age we live in today, torutre remains a feature of war and the human condition, its cause and rational, I think, go deeper then value of data derived from the act

The primary use of torture and mutilation, historically, is to scare and horrify the opposition. Thus we have 99 blinded men led home by one who was only half blinded (somewhere in the Balkans, forget the specifics). Thus also the beheading of a journalist who's reportage was negative regarding the terror group. Goal: scare and/or sicken the opposition enough that they either will not (or at least don't care to pay the price to) oppose you.

If torture is being used to force a confession or otherwise "break" an individual it will usually accomplish its goal. Everyone has a breaking point, so unless the tortured person dies prior to reaching this point, there will be a "confession."

Obviously, this negates torture as a tool of law and makes any such confessions valueless. Many will confess simply to make the torture stop.

Setting aside, for the moment, the overarching morality question....

Will a "broken" individual reveal accurate or useful information? Information gathering is not the same issue as confession generation. Mixed answer here. The report suggests that the information gathered through this approach is no more (and possibly less) valuable than information gathered through other interrogation techniques.

Is the information gathered more quickly through torture? Not sure; and not sure if anything we've learned in the WoT was time-sensitive enough. Were there any proverbial "imminent attacks" prevented?

I am not privy to the "harsh methods" results, so I cannot evaluate whether the use of such methods was justifiable in terms of the rapidity with which the information was extracted or gathered from individuals who would not have responded to "normal" interrogation.

If not, then it becomes difficult to justify such techniques if normal interrogation procedures would produce the same quality and timeliness in overall intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I am not privy to the "harsh methods" results, so I cannot evaluate whether the use of such methods was justifiable in terms of the rapidity with which the information was extracted or gathered from individuals who would not have responded to "normal" interrogation.

If not, then it becomes difficult to justify such techniques if normal interrogation procedures would produce the same quality and timeliness in overall intelligence.

---

That's the problem -- nobody knows. No studies have been conducted, so all talk of what's more efficient is anecdotal at best. We have sullied our reputation and damaged ourselves for a complete intangible.

As Orwell wrote, the point of torture is torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is the information gathered more quickly through torture? Not sure; and not sure if anything we've learned in the WoT was time-sensitive enough. Were there any proverbial "imminent attacks" prevented?

---

One more time, let me point out that according to Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC news, and his CIA sources, that much information has been gained- including information about possible future attacks.

I've posted this before, but here it is for you Seamus- Ross interviewed by O'Reilly. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I've posted this before, but here it is for you Seamus- Ross interviewed by O'Reilly. :wink:

---

foxnews.lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

foxnews.lol

---

Nice refutation. You really pwnt me there. What a n00b I was. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

One more time, let me point out that according to Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC news, and his CIA sources, that much information has been gained- including information about possible future attacks.

---

Brian Ross being personally convinced of something is rather different than methodical studies showing that torture is more effective and/or efficient than normal interrogation. We're still stuck in anecdotal land.

And for what it's worth, Brian Ross was one of many, many reporters credulously reporting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. He's good, but he ain't perfect.

Lastly, Crossloper does have a point. You're posting links to Bill O'Reilly's show? I mean, really, come on, is that in good taste? Ross is a serious reporter, but O'Reilly is an undiluted political hack. Likewise, there may be valuable information on Fred Phelps' website, but it's rather poor taste to link to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Nice refutation. You really pwnt me there. What a n00b I was. :shame:

---

:laugh4:

Well it is fox...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Brian Ross being personally convinced of something is rather different than methodical studies showing that torture is more effective and/or efficient than normal interrogation. We're still stuck in anecdotal land.

---

When people are slinging about absolutes such as "Torture never yields useful intel", all you need is anecdotal information to prove such statements false. There's never been to credible study to say that torture can't work- what I'm saying is that we know it can and we know it has. We can't show, nor do I believe that it always will provide useful information in all situations- but to say that it can never provide useful information is absurd. Further, there may be no studies on the subject, but last time I checked, all special forces, covert operatives, ect are all subjected to harsh interrogation techniques as part of their training. And they all break and give up information before it's completed.

Quote:

---

And for what it's worth, Brian Ross was one of many, many reporters credulously reporting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. He's good, but he ain't perfect.

---

This is astonishing to me. Of course he reported on it. It was the common wisdom at the time. Let's not buy into the government conspiracy gibberish here. Intelligence agencies, media outlets, and other NGO's all thought Iraq had at least some WMDs.

Quote:

---

Lastly, Crossloper does have a point. You're posting links to Bill O'Reilly's show? I mean, really, come on, is that in good taste? Ross is a serious reporter, but O'Reilly is an undiluted political hack. Likewise, there may be valuable information on Fred Phelps' website, but it's rather poor taste to link to it.

---

Two points here. 1) It doesn't matter who's interviewing Ross, it matters what he's saying. 2) I believe Seamus is an O'Reilly fan, so I thought he'd appreciate seeing Ross's findings in that format. Lastly, did you watch the link?

Lemur:

Hannity is an "undiluted political hack." His radio show could as easily be produced in a studio funded by Gingrich's PAC as anywhere else. O'Reilly is not, though he slants about 70-30 right wing with the national security, law & order, and econ stuff being right wing and a lot of the social issues/safety net issues fairly left wing -- which is a fairly mainstream mix for the USA.


Xiahou:

I wasn't arguing that the harsh methods do not get results. I was expressing concern that these harsh methods might not generate more, better, and/or faster results. I am skeptical of their use unless it does. Morally, its shaky ground at best and I am not willing to accept the moral cost without a practical payoff on the other end.

It may well be that harsh methods DO work with people who otherwise would reveal nothing, or much faster with people who would "break" anyway but would only do so after months of standard interrogation, or more completely "break" individuals who would otherwise hold back information. What we don't see is evidence that this is so -- or other investigators/ our representatives coming forward to assure us that they have seen that data and are satisfied that this approach is superior to standard techniques.

If that IS the case, I still wouldn't like it -- but would probably condone it (reluctantly) in the interest of protecting our citizens.

Quote:

---

When people are slinging about absolutes such as "Torture never yields useful intel,

---

They are either lying to themselves or very naive. Never say never :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

There's never been to credible study to say that torture can't work- what I'm saying is that we know it can and we know it has.

---

I realize you're making a limited argument, but we certainly don't know that it has been more efficient than normal interrogation. That's pure supposition on your part, backed by no data.

Consider, seriously, whether normal interrogation techniques could have helped us arrive at a similar place. It's not an incredible or outlandish idea. Then it becomes worth asking how exactly we know that it has been worth sacrificing so much prestige and power in exchange for so dubious a prize. It makes no sense, unless you accept what our enemies already know: The point of torture is torture.

Quote:

---

The point of torture is torture

---

The point is what constitutes torture.

Listen here

Good find Lemur! Let me also point out that torture, apart from being totally useless for finding information, also turns public opinion against the user of such methods. Innocent civilians no longer dare report information about terrorists to officials of a government that kidnaps and torture innocent people without proof or a trial. Say if you knew something about torture - would you report it to someone that had kidnapped several innocent civilians and tortured them for years before releasing them, and are still detaining and torturing many who have nothing that suggests they aren't innocent? I wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Let me also point out that torture, apart from being totally useless for finding information,

---

If you people would stop making ridiculous statements like this it would go much further in making your point.

Good post Lemur, describing the ambiguity of information out there. You have veterans stating that it did or did not work on them. Hell McCain even stated how it worked on him, the parents of a friend of mine giving him medical treatment once he talked. Although we thirst for this knowledge now, a competent study of absolute yes or no to its value at 100% or nothing will not ever be accomplished. I believe we won't know its complete picture of effectiveness for many years as we really can't go about telling which plots torture has revealed, or the lives saved as Tenet suggests. Furthermore we really don't want to go talking about the concrete effectiveness of those techniques used by the CIA for the last 60 years. Unless the rogue organizations and terrorist groups around the world have been keeping a database of their own, why reveal to them a concrete study. If a theoretical study comes out that states waterboarding works 40% of the time, but breaking a guys ankles works 90% of the time, who does that benefit? Not us as we don't engage in the breaking of ankles...however we'll see more of those civilian captives worldwide who manage to retain their heads, possess broken ankles.

I firmly believe that our techniques have and do work, but do they work 100% of the time? Of course not and neither should we expect them to. What in life works 100% of the time for all time. The question is the threshold for the reality of the ratio.

The most compelling aspect of this is Seamus' point that if we can't tell whether torture is actually useful (over other techniques) then is it worth sacrificing the moral stance.

And you don't just lose the moral high ground. The sad fact is that the US lost alot of goodwill when it started building off shore prisons, secret rendition flights and admitted the use of "light" torture such as waterboarding. Lost goodwill translates to lost, unwilling or less cooperative allies. It doesn't matter whether or not the US actually starts removing fingernails or electrocuting people because the damage has already been done to their reputation. They have created a climate in which the use of torture is entirely possible (maybe even probable if you are a cynic).

A good torturer is not one who can gain the best information but the one who can keep the subject alive the longest.

Quote:

---

And you don't just lose the moral high ground. The sad fact is that the US lost alot of goodwill when it started building off shore prisons, secret rendition flights and admitted the use of "light" torture such as waterboarding. Lost goodwill translates to lost, unwilling or less cooperative allies.

---

They all do or did it too. Give me a break with the holier than thou crap. We learned out tecniques from the SAS:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

The most compelling aspect of this is Seamus' point that if we can't tell whether torture is actually useful (over other techniques) then is it worth sacrificing the moral stance.

---

Yeah Seamus has a pretty good nose for the middle ground of issues, and thats normally where the truth lies.

Quote:

---

And you don't just lose the moral high ground. The sad fact is that the US lost alot of goodwill when it started building off shore prisons, secret rendition flights and admitted the use of "light" torture such as waterboarding. Lost goodwill translates to lost, unwilling or less cooperative allies. It doesn't matter whether or not the US actually starts removing fingernails or electrocuting people because the damage has already been done to their reputation.

---

That lost goodwill bit, well the horse has been out of that barn for some time, it wasnt going to get much worse then it was. However we do have Ms. USA being booed at the miss universe so maybe its all shot now anyway.

Torture for the purpose of information gathering has value, the problem is that the premise for the value gained (the war on terror) is suspect by many. That dosent mean you cant get good data from methods employed.

Is it okay to set humanity aside to garnish information that saves lives? Well I say it is, but it must be under the guise of having a creadable leader, policy, and threat and thats where I think the U.S. has tripped up.

that predates the rendition flights being exposed and admissions of techniques.

Quote:

---

that predates the rendition flights being exposed and admissions of techniques.

---

Yeah our biggest problem in the war on terror has been the New York Slimes. :laugh4: They should be brought up on sedition charges but people find Scooter Libby to be more of a security threat and leak lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

They all do or did it too. Give me a break with the holier than thou crap. We learned out tecniques from the SAS:laugh4:

---

Although the morality and effectiveness of torture is oft debated why do you think it is currently an issue?

Quote:

---

Although the morality and effectiveness of torture is oft debated why do you think it is currently an issue?

---

Gee i wonder LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Gee i wonder LOL.

---

Quite.

So why the aggressive response to my earlier post?

Quote:

---

So why the aggressive response to my earlier post?
__________________

---

Didnt you see the smiley? And Its not like no one else does or has ever practiced it. And again what constitutes torture?

"But someone else does it too" and "but this isn't real torture" don't exactly cut it you know. Those are called "lame excuses" around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Good find Lemur! Let me also point out that torture, apart from being totally useless for finding information, also turns public opinion against the user of such methods. Innocent civilians no longer dare report information about terrorists to officials of a government that kidnaps and torture innocent people without proof or a trial. Say if you knew something about torture - would you report it to someone that had kidnapped several innocent civilians and tortured them for years before releasing them, and are still detaining and torturing many who have nothing that suggests they aren't innocent? I wouldn't.

---

Interesting thought. I hadn't considered it in these terms yet, but I suppose if I had suspicions about a neighbor but wasn't sure, I'd be a lot less likely to call up homeland security if I thought he might be tortured. I'd hate to be responsible for doing something like that to an innocent man.

Ajax

Quote:

---

"But someone else does it too" and "but this isn't real torture" don't exactly cut it you know. Those are called "lame excuses" around here.

---

Thats not the excuse thats just a fact. And again what constitutes torture? Incarceration itself can be seen as torture.

You use it as an excuse though.

As for the rest, :dizzy2: . Stuff it Clinton. Semantics don't work here. Are you incidentally aware as of why incerceration came to replace legally applied violence as the standard form of punishement in "Western" legal system a few centuries back...?

Quote:

---

You use it as an excuse though.

---

I never use it as an excuse . Because it isnt one. I just state facts.

Quote:

---

Semantics don't work here. Are you incidentally aware as of why incerceration came to replace legally applied violence as the standard form of punishement in "Western" legal system a few centuries back...?

---

And you are aware of what a total failure it has been. Ive been to jail and Ill take waterboarding for a few hours over a year or two in jail anyday.

Presumably though your incarceration was after due legal process? In which case it is slightly different from the individuals who are currently vulnerable to torture while imprisoned by, or on behalf of, the US. I suspect also that your incarceration was not utilised as a means of extracting either a confession or information and that if either of those were sought by the authorities then you had access to a lawyer. If you went to gaol then it was as a punishment as required by law.

I should probably note that I don't usually pay much attention to smilies, preferring to read the text instead.

Quote:

---

Presumably though your incarceration was after due legal process?

---

Well I went to court after spending 2 months in jail and then it was a railroad job because I had to take legal aid. First time I was ever arrested. My brother did something far worse and got off with probation because he could afford a lawyer. Torture goes on in every precinct I know of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Torture goes on in every precinct I know of.

---

By favor of those who wish to throw around the word torture liberally and have it defined as some do literally and all encompassing, then I could also claim that my basic human dignity and civil rights as violated should Mrs Clinton become Mrs President. Maybe we can make it a class action, I'm sure the U.N. would care.

How about putting a phone book on your head and bashing you with a night stick is that torture? How about just smacking you around? If you get arrested even if your innocent they take you to the precinct strip search you and then put you in a cell where you cant even see anyone else. All you have is a board to sleep on with no pillow or anything to cover yourself with. If your lucky you will get an egg sandwich for breakfast and a baloney one for lunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How about putting a phone book on your head and bashing you with a night stick is that torture? How about just smacking you around? If you get arrested even if your innocent they take you to the precinct strip search you and then put you in a cell where you cant even see anyone else. All you have is a board to sleep on with no pillow or anything to cover yourself with. If your lucky you will get an egg sandwich for breakfast and a baloney one for lunch.

---

Oh sure, this all falls under the broad interpretation. Hell an egg sandwich is torture for me. Being in handcuffs can be considered torture for many people and by the broad interpretation. Not to lesson your ordeal at all, but rather stating with you that the word "torture" is sought to cover a lot of ground these days.

Quote:

---

Oh sure, this all falls under the broad interpretation. Hell an egg sandwich is torture for me. Being in handcuffs can be considered torture for many people and by the broad interpretation. Not lesson your ordeal at all, but rather stating with you that the word "torture" is sought to cover a lot of ground these days.

---

Thats all I wanted to illustrate . We accept a certain amount of torture in our culture, all cultures do(this is not an excuse) the thing is where do you draw the line? Thats how Bush can claim we dont torture people. Its all subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thats all I wanted to illustrate . We accept a certain amount of torture in our culture, all cultures do(this is not an excuse) the thing is where do you draw the line? Thats how Bush can claim we dont torture people. Its all subjective.

---

Well legally he can claim it as there aren't any legal bounds for how and where it is being carried out as has been the case for 60 + years. There isn't anything new about it either other than the press coverage and partisan politics. He can deny it also as he has no legal obligations under information privilege. We can do anything we really wanted to in the scope where these techniques are being used.

What's funny is that our restraint isn't being viewed and reported as a marked trait, but rather that these techniques are a wholesale equivalent to everything under the torture umbrella and we are barbarians making our enemies look like angels. If that isn't slant...I've got some lovely mountainside property that would make a perfect golf course...

Quote:

---

What's funny is that our restraint isn't being viewed and reported as a marked trait, but rather that these techniques are a wholesale equivalent to everything under the torture umbrella and we are barbarians making our enemies look like angels. If that isn't slant...I've got some lovely mountainside property that would make a perfect golf course...

---

Well then you and I are trying to make the same point .

The problem with torture is once we start doing it, it leaves any of our captured soliders open to it on the grounds of they did it to us first. We should remember the golden rule more offten.

One aspect of torture I think we can be objective about: if you treat someone in a way that is designed to cause distress or discomfort in order to get them to confess or give you information then that is torture. The treatment could be physical abuse, mental torment or the threat of either to themselves or others. In such cases not only is the torturer acting imorally, the information so gleaned will not be reliable. Under this test, locking someone in an uncomfortable police cell to get them to confess to a crime is torture, but locking them up to keep them from absconding before you can get them before a judge is not.

Torture as a punishment, rather than to extract information is more subjective because it depends upon what people view as cruel. Perhaps a "humane" treatment test works here. You can incacerate people as a punishment and treat them humanely. You can't humanely waterboard someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The ultimate point of torture is torture.

---

Sums it up.

Another Lemur home run. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well I went to court after spending 2 months in jail and then it was a railroad job because I had to take legal aid. First time I was ever arrested. My brother did something far worse and got off with probation because he could afford a lawyer. Torture goes on in every precinct I know of.

---

As I said, due process. Not necessarily fair or even, but what was required by law. Mistreatment by the police is another matter.

When was this by the way? Two years ago? Forty?

Quote:

---

As I said, due process. Not necessarily fair or even, but what was required by law. Mistreatment by the police is another matter.

---

I forget which candidate said it in the republican debate but when asked about torture said I would tell me head of security to get me the information. Brilliant answer. The higher ups dont want to know. Its built into the system.

Quote:

---

When was this by the way? Two years ago? Forty?

---

30 years ago

Quote:

---

The problem with torture is once we start doing it, it leaves any of our captured soliders open to it on the grounds of they did it to us first. We should remember the golden rule more offten.

---

Their cutting our soldiers heads off lol. They have no such quams about torture, If you play a game by the rules and your enemy doesnt who do you think has a better chance of winning. When will you learn war is not a game. At leastin the real world. We sign things like Geneva for such reasons. These guys are not signatories of any treaty. I say fight fire with fire. Its a two way street. Hell Id have everyone over there greasing their guns with pig fat.See how happy they are to die then.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

The problem with torture is once we start doing it, it leaves any of our captured soliders open to it on the grounds of they did it to us first. We should remember the golden rule more offten.

---

U.S. Soldiers were treated to "harsh methods" and/or outright torture in virtually every conflict in which they have been involved since 1950. Prior to the WoT, you would be hard-pressed to assert that this was because of previous use of torture/harsh interrogation by the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Their cutting our soldiers heads off lol. They have no such quams about torture, If you play a game by the rules and your enemy doesnt who do you think has a better chance of winning.

---

What goes down for torture I wouldn't call torture, moderate pressure at most. You have your weapons, they have theirs. Yours is raw power theirs is fear. Torture doesn't get them anywhere, and it benefits you guys not that much. Best to just don't do it imvho, although I can think of a few cases where fishing hooks could come in handy, not against it per se, but there is no necesity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Sums it up.

---

Respectfully disagree, if the purpose of torture was torture than there would be no rhyme to the reason and anyone who examines the issue can see there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Respectfully disagree, if the purpose of torture was torture than there would be no rhyme to the reason and anyone who examines the issue can see there is.

---

So you think all who use torture are rational and reasonable? Maybe you've not heard of witch processes? People who use torture are often people with grave mental disorders who try to vent their aggressions and sexual-sadistic ideas on someone, and they try hard to convince authorities and officials that what they do isn't just for their own fulfillment but that it is good for "the state", or similar. Witch doctors, human sacrifice priests, etc, are a nuisance that appear every now and then in history and manage to fool some persons because they play on things such as what these people already hate.

Quote:

---

So you think all who use torture are rational and reasonable?

---

So you think their different from everyone else? Are all of any group ALL rational and reasonable? To say the only purpose of torture is torture is silly statement on the face of it. Can it be used just for that? Why of course. So is that what your accusing the US of ? Is this government policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

People who use torture are often people with grave mental disorders who try to vent their aggressions and sexual-sadistic ideas on someone, and they try hard to convince authorities and officials that what they do isn't just for their own fulfillment but that it is good for "the state", or similar. Witch doctors, human sacrifice priests, etc, are a nuisance that appear every now and then in history and manage to fool some persons because they play on things such as what these people already hate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The ultimate point of torture is torture.

---

Both these statements are nothing more than an exercise in passive aggressive rhetoric. They say nothing specific about the topic at hand, but rather hope to lump everything in one sum and cast venom upon any who advocate anything under that umbrella definition. Both statements are dishonest at their very best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Their cutting our soldiers heads off lol. They have no such quams about torture, If you play a game by the rules and your enemy doesnt who do you think has a better chance of winning. When will you learn war is not a game. At leastin the real world. We sign things like Geneva for such reasons. These guys are not signatories of any treaty. I say fight fire with fire. Its a two way street.

---

...and you actually had the nerve to claim you weren't using "but they do it too" as an excuse ? :inquisitive:

Side note: although I'll have to agree Legio doesn't quite seem to have a clue about what he's talking of with his historical references (which are by and large patently wrong).

Quote:

---

and you actually had the nerve to claim you weren't using "but they do it too" as an excuse ?

---

Only in war. Only if you want to win. We performed many atrocities in WW2 also but since we won you dont hear much about it. In war everyone does it. When its you or the other guy the hell with the damn rules. You sort those out later and leave it to the politicians.

So... where does that actually leave you any different from the other side then ? And since when was the US situation so desperate as to require such measures anyway ? Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances - so where do you guys get off with it and why, pray tell ?
:no:
So now you're adding "dire necessity of circumstance" and, implicitly, "just causes" to the list of hollow excuses then ?

Quote:

---

Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances -

---

Yes even the Nazis. Theres good and bad in every group. How is that rellevant. Im saying when the rules of war say you cant use a 50 cal mg on soft targets IE humans and your being over run you shoot the damn bastards. You worry if its against the rules later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

So... where does that actually leave you any different from the other side then ? And since when was the US situation so desperate as to require such measures anyway ? Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances - so where do you guys get off with it and why, pray tell ?

---

Be very careful with absolute statements such as this. The Fire Bombing of a certain German town belies such a stance. There are other exambles but for the absolute statement lets just start with that one.

And the Soviet Union had several instances where morality on the battlefield completely broke down.

Sometimes I wonder just how many conditionals would be required for some people to not read things in an excessively absolute fashion...

Quote:

---

Sometimes I wonder just how many conditionals would be required for some people to not read things in an excessively absolute fashion...

---

When you stop making statements like this

Quote:

---

Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances

---

The point is many if not all of them did not. Every country was guilty if you look hard enough.

:dizzy2:
We're talking torture of enemy combatants here, not carpet bombing or mustard gas. Even the damn Nazis were all civilized about Western Allied POWs as the standard policy AFAIK, you know.

Sheesh. Keep on topic people.

Quote:

---

We're talking torture of enemy combatants here,

---

Exactly. You think we didnt do that in WW2?

I don't know, did you ? On a scale, level of systemacy and organization, and open BS excuses comparable to now ?

Quote:

---

I don't know, did you ? On a scale, level of systemacy and organization, and open BS excuses comparable to now ?

---

We will never know now will we. We werent so open and stupid with the press back then. And they werent as anti FDR.

Do I even need to point out that rings hollow ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Both these statements are nothing more than an exercise in passive aggressive rhetoric.

---

Passive-aggressive? I don't think that words means what you think it means ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

They say nothing specific about the topic at hand, but rather hope to lump everything in one sum and cast venom upon any who advocate anything under that umbrella definition.

---

We're lumping, summing, casting venom and giving out umbrellas? This statement is nothing more than an exercise in mixed metaphor and purple prose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Both statements are dishonest at their very best.

---

Got hyperbole?

-edit-

By the way, the line I used was a quote from George Orwell. Clearly you are a special man if you can smell "passive-aggressive" prose from the master. You should think twice before lobbing bombs at other people's writing.

Full quote:

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?

I guess no further progress will be made in this thread, everybody'll just stick to their guns (as usual:beam:). We can just add its conclusions to the "Predefined Backroom stances" thread right there with abortions, religion, and gun ownership.

Lemme do a quick summary for y'all who didn't feel like plodding through 3 pages of this:

- it's not torture, it's "enhanced interrogation techniques"
- it's ok if we do it, because others do/did it, too
- it's not torture, I've already told you that!
- it's definitely not torture if we legalize it and categorize it
- it's not torture, and, besides, they're terrorists, so it's okay to use torture on them. How do we know they're terrorists ? Because the gov't thinks so, of course. And I've already told you it's NOT torture!

edit: I forgot to add: Oh, and torture *works* ! (not that we're using it, mind you).

Quote:

---

Lemme do a quick summary for y'all who didn't feel like plodding through 3 pages of this:

- it's not torture, it's "enhanced interrogation techniques"
- it's ok if we do it, because others do/did it, too
- it's not torture, I've already told you that!
- it's definitely not torture if we legalize it and categorize it
- it's not torture, and, besides, they're terrorists, so it's okay to use torture on them. How do we know they're terrorists ? Because the gov't thinks so, of course. And I've already told you it's NOT torture!

edit: I forgot to add: Oh, and torture *works* ! (not that we're using it, mind you).

---

Well that is how the liberal press would report it to be sure :laugh4:

And you and others would claim your post was unbiased.

Quote:

---

Their cutting our soldiers heads off lol. They have no such quams about torture, If you play a game by the rules and your enemy doesnt who do you think has a better chance of winning. When will you learn war is not a game. At leastin the real world. We sign things like Geneva for such reasons. These guys are not signatories of any treaty. I say fight fire with fire. Its a two way street. Hell Id have everyone over there greasing their guns with pig fat.See how happy they are to die then.

---

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Just because marry pushed jimmey on the playground dosn't mean that it's ok for Jimmy to push her back. Netheir should it be okay to use what the enemy is doing to justify our actions. Does that mean that we have a right to sucide bomb civllians because it's already being done? Besides you can't tell me that this isn't creating more terriorist by lending to the evil U.S. image.

Quote:

---

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

---

Are we cutting heads off. Are you comparing our treatment of POWs to theirs?

Quote:

---

Besides you can't tell me that this isn't creating more terriorist by lending to the evil U.S. image.

---

They hate us anyway. Its ingrained in them at this point. Blame it on oil.

I had posted they learn it in school but I though nah. So I did a little search.

Heres a sample of a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)

Quote:

---

FIRST GRADE

" Every religion other than Islam is false."

"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."

"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."

"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."

EIGHTH GRADE

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
NINTH GRADE

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."

TENTH GRADE

The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:

"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).

"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."

ELEVENTH GRADE

"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."

"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."

"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

TWELFTH GRADE

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."

---

Now how do we address that. It is even being taught here in the US now.

LINK

Oh the fear mongering. :dizzy2:

Torture is for teh weak. Real men fights his opponents with both sides armed, full gladiator fashion; swords, shields, rusty helmets and all. Televised.

Everything else is just neo-con cowardly swine-ness.

Quote:

---

Are we cutting heads off. Are you comparing our treatment of POWs to theirs?

---

I was attacking your response that because they cut off our soliders head we have a right to torture them. Once again an inhumane act is not justified by another inhumane act. No matter if it is more inhumane.

Quote:

---

They hate us anyway. Its ingrained in them at this point. Blame it on oil.

I had posted they learn it in school but I though nah. So I did a little search.

Heres a sample of a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)

---

So every arab is automaticly inngrained to attack us? Then why didn't afganistan explode on us as well?

I think you have missed the point of DoH's post, Gawain. The "eye for an eye" bit is not the important part of his post. The bit that you need to read is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Netheir should it be okay to use what the enemy is doing to justify our actions.

---

In other words, if something is immoral then it is wrong, no matter what the provocation.

As to the Saudi textbooks, I would like to make two points. Firstly in spite of what their children are being taught, the Saudi Arabian government are still a good ally to the US at the moment. The support the Saudis give is important and it would silly to do anything to jeopardize friendly relations on a government level. Indeed Turki al-Faisal has paid lip service to the notion that the state school system should not promote prejudice. A concerted campaign to win hearts and minds might persuade their government to match the words with effective action. Indifference to what Saudis think whether it is the government or the people of the country because "they hate us anyway" will not decrease the number of people willing to commit acts of terror against the west nor the number of non-terrorists who excuse their actions. Use of torture and the extra-legal detentions at Guantanamo Bay work against the interests of the West.

Secondly I am much more concerned about the attitudes of young Moslems in Bradford than I am about those in SA. Almost all of these attend state schools where they are not exposed to the Saudi textbooks. Most of them want the freedom to follow their religion and the opportunity to participate in the economic, cultural and social life of the UK. However the notion of brotherhood is very important in Islam and it is very easy to alienate them.

However neither of these points are the most important. Torture de-humanizes the victim, the torturer and those who support it. It undermines one of the finest attributes of mankind - our ability to empathise. Any individual, group or nation that accepts it diminishes themselves moral and spiritually and this is why it should be shunned by all.

Quote:

---

think you have missed the point of DoH's post, Gawain. The "eye for an eye" bit is not the important part of his post. The bit that you need to read is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope
Netheir should it be okay to use what the enemy is doing to justify our actions.

---

My whole point is we are not doing what they are doing. Not even close. Cant you get that through your heads. Once more this is no game. You people need a reality check. What ever happened to covert action? Its now a dirty word.

PS I am not in favor of torture. Only in extreme circumstances . That is you know like in the child buried alive type scenario where you have only hours to get the info and you know this guy knows where the kid is and wont talk. How many of you would oppose a little torture there? No permanent bodily damage .

So you're saying it's OK to beat people up if you only do it a little and don't wear brass knuckles ?
:no:
Wrong answer. Try again.

I also cannot fail to notice you're now rather silent on the issue we were discussing but a short time ago...

Quote:

---

So you're saying it's OK to beat people up if you only do it a little and don't wear brass knuckles ?

---

If it saves lives yes. I suppose you would let the child just die then. Which is the greater evil? Sometimes the means do justify the ends.

Do you favor war and killing? . Sometimes you must do evil things to accomplish good ones. I know its horrible but thats reality. You look for a way to justify it so you feel better is all you can hope to do.

Quote:

---

I also cannot fail to notice you're now rather silent on the issue we were discussing but a short time ago...

---

And what would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

If it saves lives yes. I suppose you would let the child just die then. Which is the greater evil? Sometimes the means do justify the ends.

---

Please do not insult my intelligence by trying to imply we're dealing with an even remotely comparable issue here.

Quote:

---

Do you favor war and killing? . Sometimes you must do evil things to accomplish good ones. I know its horrible but thats reality. You look for a way to justify it so you feel better is all you can hope to do.

---

I fail to see where this hypothetical necessity would make it any less morally wrong you know. Nevermind now that for the patently dodgy "end justifies the means" argument to even try to carry any real weight, both the "ends" and the "means" would need to be subjected to rather thorough scrutiny - which I'm rather failing to see happening, seeing as how nobody seems to have any real or tenable idea what the "ends" in this whole War On Terror mess actually are to begin with.

Quote:

---

And what would that be?

---

Seems to come at an abrupt halt at post #64 of this thread. Don't feign ignorance, please.

its all irrelevant since those who favor torture and military intervention in the first place are only serving to motivate and recruit more of the militants they claim to be trying to stop. So in effect, the torture-party is endangering lives not saving them.

Subjecting what all too often amount to random passerbys to torture - regardless of severity - isn't generally regarded as a prime way to gain friends, respect and prestige, true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

By the way, the line I used was a quote from George Orwell. Clearly you are a special man if you can smell "passive-aggressive" prose from the master. You should think twice before lobbing bombs at other people's writing.

Full quote:

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?

---

Clearly you must think yourself a special man if you think you can pull Orwell as a sacred cow to gloss your arguments' shortcomings. Does critical thinking stop in the presence of Orwell? Does one stop validating statements due to authorship alone? Ever tried defending a thesis by pulling out random quotes and wishing them to stand on their own merit or rather the author's merit and not your own? laughable

Orwell like anyone else is not above critique and he is, quoted separate from context in an attempt to prove your pathetic little point that waterboarding and belly slaps are a self feeding sadistic Georgia pig, wrong. Your point was nothing to the state of defining what torture is and then choosing to label it. We all know your position and how you choose the broad stroke seperate from point of principle.

Oh did you want me to point out the passive aggressive attacks in each one of your rebuttal posts where you are challenged? Surely you're special enough to see these yourself. From our previous exchanges I found you far above all of this.

Quote:

---

Do I even need to point out that rings hollow ?

---

Quote:

---

Seems to come at an abrupt halt at post #64 of this thread. Don't feign ignorance, please.

---

Im not feigning anything. That was a question? And i was to know that was the particular one you meant? :inquisitive: I still dont know what to say.I thought it was an opinion.

Quote:

---

Please do not insult my intelligence by trying to imply we're dealing with an even remotely comparable issue here.

---

Your right. Its like Lemur claims were torturing people for the sake of torture not to save lives, were just sadistic bastards. Me in particular.

Come down off your ivory tower and come live in the filth of the real world with the rest of us. Yeah I know its a horrible place.

Look I admire your ideals and your intellect, but it begs reality is my only point.