So you say you are against torture, Really?

[Autodidact]

Good point, now can we apply this argument to incarceration? Is prison a create-a-criminal program?

It can have that effect, especially if young check-kiters are housed with older murderers.

What would really be bad would be arresting people with no idea if they were guilty, throwing them in with hardened gang-members and murderers, then letting them go. = Guantanamo.

 

[Autodidact]

You are speaking in absolutes, so that would make you absolutely wrong.

If the information that was extracted could be verified one way or the other, I believe the second interrogation could be fruitful.

Let's apply the scenario in the OP. If you say they are buried out back of the barn, and I go look and they are not there, I will come back and give it another try. Yes, some folks can withstand torture and not give away any vital information, but when faced with verification of the information given, most would give it up.

They would also give up utter lies, if they thought it would get the torture to stop. The problem with torture (besides being morally wrong and counter-productive) is not too little information; it's too much and too wrong.

 

[Jackytar]

I don't want anyone having cart blanche on this issue on either side of the arguement.

Well, I think we need the rule, and then, if applicable, the exception to the rule. But we still need the rule.

Lt. Col. John A. Nagl, coauthor of the Army's counterinsurgency field manual, answered your OP two years ago...

link

Jackytar

 

[3.14]

Interesting story. How many of them were foiled by use of torture? Answer: none. You're arguing against yourself.

technicly just the fear of being tortured might have detered some, who knows how many other attempts we would have if they thought the only trouble the get into was a stiff talkto

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In that situation, it probably would be better to get some truth serum. Truth serum is considered torture by international law, but physical torture has such a high chance of yielding faulty information, that a less violent, more assured way would probably be better, especially when working with a very limited time frame.

 

[Autodidact]

technicly just the fear of being tortured might have detered some, who knows how many other attempts we would have if they thought the only trouble the get into was a stiff talkto

So the torture then is not an interrogation method but a punishment. What you might call cruel and unusual punishment? That darned constitution is so inconvenient.

 

[Alceste]

technicly just the fear of being tortured might have detered some, who knows how many other attempts we would have if they thought the only trouble the get into was a stiff talkto

Let me get this straight: You think fear of being barked at, held in stressful positions, exposed to extreme heat and cold, beaten, humiliated and subjected to simulated drowning is going to "deter" people who are willing to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up in an effort to kill their enemies, the torturers? Me, I think it would only make me MORE eager to kill my torturing enemies. If I leaned that way to begin with, that is.

 

[DallasApple]

Besides that..many people will say anything true or not true to get out of the pain .

The best way to get a "false confession" or bad information ????Beat the living crap out of them.

If torture really worked we would all be at peace by now.

Torture DOES work though to train people into violence I would imagine.To teach how to have no sympathy or empathy.Cold..dead cold.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Your children and wife or husband has been abducted. Their captor has been caught and has stated that they are buried with enough oxygen and water to survive for less than 12 hours.

You have control over your families captor. He does not want to tell you where they are buried and says he wants them to die. Do you want to read him his rights or do you do what is necessary to get him to talk?

Get him drunk.Feed him good food..and if its a male especially offer him some "sexin" with the girl of his choice..He will talk.

And you didnt even have to torture the dude.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

So it is OK to impose YOUR morals on someone else?

Let me ask you this..What and who gets to decide what is "moral torture"?

Love

Dallas

 

[Rin]

Your children and wife or husband has been abducted. Their captor has been caught and has stated that they are buried with enough oxygen and water to survive for less than 12 hours.

You have control over your families captor. He does not want to tell you where they are buried and says he wants them to die. Do you want to read him his rights or do you do what is necessary to get him to talk?

Why do you judge what is morally right by how people act? Nobody is perfect. I'm sure that most people in this situation could not make a correct moral decision. The correct moral decision is to not torture, however, I would be a hypocrite.

Thankfully, on a social scale, we can remove the responsibility of making the decision from those who are emotionally involved and stop torture completely.

 

[3.14]

Let me get this straight: You think fear of being barked at, held in stressful positions, exposed to extreme heat and cold, beaten, humiliated and subjected to simulated drowning is going to "deter" people who are willing to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up in an effort to kill their enemies, the torturers? Me, I think it would only make me MORE eager to kill my torturing enemies. If I leaned that way to begin with, that is.

not all terrorists are suiside terrorists,

 

[shortfade2]

So if by chance I come to suspect that you were the person who planted a bomb, I should be able to arrest you and torture you until you give me the name of your co-conspirators?

btw, I heard from some people that I talk about politics with that shortfade is an Al Qaeda terrorist, and I'm sure that information is at least as accurate as the people you talk politics with.

1. Dont kill the messenger
2. Actually read my post again
3. We aren't seeing eye to eye.

I said that people caught in the act of terrorism. Not suspected. I was implying that if I catch you strapping a bomb to a bridge, then YOU are placed under arrest. If INTEL pops up that you were not working alone, then I interrogate you, and if you dont give in, then I bring in a PSYCHIOTRIST who judges your behavior and tells me whether or not she believes you, based on scientific things that humans do when lying. If you continue to resist interrogation, we recheck our intel, and if it proves right. THEN. ONLY THEN!!! Do we begin torture techniques of lesser kind, like making you listen to loud music for hours and hours, along with other things to soften you up mentally. NOT immediately to the waterboard, and out with you!!!

 

[Alceste]

not all terrorists are suiside terrorists,

True, some are US army personnel.

 

[shortfade2]

True, some are US army personnel.

Yeah, ex-army guys, whatever. I hear that some people actually join the army with the intent of using the military training to lead gangs, and get weapons from the military.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, ex-army guys, whatever. I hear that some people actually join the army with the intent of using the military training to lead gangs, and get weapons from the military.

If you think the current personnel in the US military are not "terrorists" to the people they're dropping bombs on, torturing, occasionally raping and imprisoning indefinitely without cause then I have to wonder if the word "terrorist" has any meaning at all to you. Is it just a synonym for "enemy"?

 

[shortfade2]

If you think the current personnel in the US military are not "terrorists" to the people they're dropping bombs on, torturing, occasionally raping and imprisoning indefinitely without cause then I have to wonder if the word "terrorist" has any meaning at all to you. Is it just a synonym for "enemy"?

Oh they've been doing that over there? Really.... A friend of mine is OVER there has been over there for a while, and says that its not like that at all....at least where he's at.

How would we know about it if they were? Would the government come out and say, "HEY CITIZENS!!! OUR SOLDIERS ARE RAPING MUSLIM WOMEN!!! YEEEEHAAAWWW!!" I think not. And how dare you turn our soldiers, who have DIED over there protecting us into murderers and rapists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If you live in another country, and are a civilian. And one of your family members is killed while the occupying force is going after "rebels", would you consider them murderers? Or would you accept it as, "but they are the good guys".

And yes, rape of the locals, by US soldiers has happened.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18105-Humanitarian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m9d7-ExUS-Soldier-gets-5-Life-sentences-for-rape-and-murder-of-an-Iraqi-teenager
U.S. Soldiers Accused Of Raping Iraqi Women Escape Prosecution

Of course this is only a few "bad apples". Most soldiers would never do this. But you cannot deny that it does happen.
As for "civilian casualties", it is a frequent occurrence in war.
FACTBOX-Military and civilian deaths in Iraq | Reuters

 

[Duck]

If you live in another country, and are a civilian. And one of your family members is killed while the occupying force is going after "rebels", would you consider them murderers? Or would you accept it as, "but they are the good guys".

And yes, rape of the locals, by US soldiers has happened.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18105-Humanitarian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m9d7-ExUS-Soldier-gets-5-Life-sentences-for-rape-and-murder-of-an-Iraqi-teenager
U.S. Soldiers Accused Of Raping Iraqi Women Escape Prosecution

Of course this is only a few "bad apples". Most soldiers would never do this. But you cannot deny that it does happen.
As for "civilian casualties", it is a frequent occurrence in war.
FACTBOX-Military and civilian deaths in Iraq | Reuters

There are of course also the allegation of "blue on blue" sexual harassment and violence. Again, only a few bad apples.

 

[Duck]

Oh they've been doing that over there? Really.... A friend of mine is OVER there has been over there for a while, and says that its not like that at all....at least where he's at.

How would we know about it if they were? Would the government come out and say, "HEY CITIZENS!!! OUR SOLDIERS ARE RAPING MUSLIM WOMEN!!! YEEEEHAAAWWW!!" I think not. And how dare you turn our soldiers, who have DIED over there protecting us into murderers and rapists.

The question of course is how exactly are we being protected by invading another country that had NO connection to terrorism prior to our overthrowing the legitimate government we supported throughout the 1980's?