Thread: torture

^
I had this treatment in police custody, they wanted to get some info out of me which I didn't have. - but that's different from torture.

I wasn't exactly in fear of my life or concerned I'd get permanently damaged.
You do wonder what they'll do next to you, though. Was handcuffed and "roughed up" a bit. All illegal, needless to say, but try to prove that later....

Originally Posted by raycarey

because they're really, really tough.






but not tough enough to go to iraq though.

So say's another Chicken-Hawk (but of another persuasion, eh?)

Originally Posted by stroller

^
I had this treatment in police custody, they wanted to get some info out of me which I didn't have. - but that's different from torture.

I wasn't exactly in fear of my life or concerned I'd get permanently damaged.
You do wonder what they'll do next to you, though. Was handcuffed and "roughed up" a bit. All illegal, needless to say, but try to prove that later....

Come on Stroller, tell us more - what did you do, what info did they think you had? I've clearly lead a very sheltered life - only seen the inside of a police station two or three times, and then on the right side of the counter.

Originally Posted by RDN

I've clearly lead a very sheltered life

yes i think so
I had my first police beating at about the age of 15 for no real reson other being a smart little prick. You lose all respect for the law when they do something like that. Just like the the amry airforce and navy picks that worked in MCE foking scum of the earth I think I would hurt one of those guys if I met them again. I would not even treat a animal they way they use to treat people in Army jails.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by raycarey

because they're really, really tough.

but not tough enough to go to iraq though.

So say's another Chicken-Hawk (but of another persuasion, eh?)

It's really not a matter of being tough. It's about opportunity. Other than Medical types the Navy only sends a handful of Supply Officers ... and Storekeepers right now. But soon many more will be going.And even then it's nowhere near the actual comabt zones. Most comfy places with swimming pools and gyms setting up contractor or purchasing work.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by raycarey

because they're really, really tough.






but not tough enough to go to iraq though.

So say's another Chicken-Hawk (but of another persuasion, eh?)

boonie apparently you're unable to grasp the meaning of the term chicken-hawk. i have never been 'hawkish' on this war or any other....nor have i expected others to go to war for my ideology.

and you?

Back on subject.
Torture doesn't work. They will say anything that you want to hear to get the torturers to stop.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Torture doesn't work. They will say anything that you want to hear to get the torturers to stop.

of course it doesn't....and you may have noticed that none of the '24' crowd (you know, the one's who post...."but if a tearurist knew that a bomb was going to blow up a kindergarten, you're damn right i'd waterboard him because i'm really that tough...and it's only a fraternity prank anyway.) have refuted this.

they think it's a video game or tv show....

Do try to get your quotes right. What I said was:

Originally Posted by RDN

...If a terrorist - in fact, if anybody - knew where a bomb was located that was going to kill lots of people, I would do whatever was necessary - including torture - to get that information out of him/her.

Still makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by RDN

...If a terrorist - in fact, if anybody - knew where a bomb was located that was going to kill lots of people, I would do whatever was necessary - including torture - to get that information out of him/her.

Still makes sense to me.

Of course as an individual you are right to feel that way, but a professional interrogator will know better than you when to stop because it doesn't make sense any more, i.e. the subject doesn't know and will make up stories - and methods within legality are well researched and developed; and a nation's policies need to consider more than an individual's emotions. There may be the rare case where actual torture would bring out crucial info, but it's the exception rather than the norm.

and the lack of accountability is also a cause of great concern.

who makes the decision that a suspect knows 'the information' about a terrorist threat? if the torturer is wrong and the suspect is innocent, are there any repercussions? or is it just, "oops, my bad".

additionally...
what type of applicant is chosen to be a torturer?
what type of torture are they permitted to use? is there any techniques which are outlawed? or is it like the attorney general of US said....anything up to and including organ failure?
how many innocent people are they allowed to torture by mistake before they lose their license to torture?

these types of questions aren't addressed on '24' but they are fundamental to the discussion.

Originally Posted by stroller

Of course as an individual you are right to feel that way, but a professional interrogator will know better than you when to stop because it doesn't make sense any more, i.e. the subject doesn't know and will make up stories - and methods within legality are well researched and developed; and a nation's policies need to consider more than an individual's emotions.

I've already said under what conditions I think torture is justified, but I'm not going to search back to find it - it is in this thread a few pages back.

I agree that a "professional" will know when to stop - why do you imply I said anything to the contrary?

Originally Posted by stroller

There may be the rare case where actual torture would bring out crucial info, but it's the exception rather than the norm.

Do you have access to some statistics about this, is it something you read on the internet, or did you just make it up for effect?

Originally Posted by raycarey

and the lack of accountability is also a cause of great concern.

who makes the decision that a suspect knows 'the information' about a terrorist threat? if the torturer is wrong ...these types of questions aren't addressed on '24' but they are fundamental to the discussion..

Again, sigh, I've already posted the circumstances under which torture - specifically water-boarding - could be used.

And again, I don't watch '24'. You seem to know more about it than me.

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by stroller

Of course as an individual you are right to feel that way, but a professional interrogator will know better than you when to stop because it doesn't make sense any more, i.e. the subject doesn't know and will make up stories - and methods within legality are well researched and developed; and a nation's policies need to consider more than an individual's emotions.

I've already said under what conditions I think torture is justified, but I'm not going to search back to find it - it is in this thread a few pages back.

I agree that a "professional" will know when to stop - why do you imply I said anything to the contrary?

It wasn't clear at all where you would put the boundaries - if any at all.

Originally Posted by stroller

There may be the rare case where actual torture would bring out crucial info, but it's the exception rather than the norm.

Do you have access to some statistics about this, is it something you read on the internet, or did you just make it up for effect?

Something from another board which I can't find to quote now, but use your common sense: would you, at some point, make up a story to please your 'torturer' so they'll ease inflicting pain on you? Is this a far-fetched scenario?

A related article:
Another "symptom of failed intelligence: torture"

maybe they should just CUT THEIR FUKIN HEADS OFF coz it seems to be acceptable when the mussies do it !!!! tit for tat

^
Well, that would get a lot of crucial info out of them.

And who said it's acceptable when "the mussies" do it?

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Back on subject.
Torture doesn't work. They will say anything that you want to hear to get the torturers to stop.

Perhaps not in all cases but what does work is the threat of torture. All the bleeding-hearts who want to play by the Marquis de Queenberry's rules are waaaay out of touch. Suicidal naivete and smug ignorance that has to be seen to be believed...

Originally Posted by raycarey

over the next few years, we're going to learn all about how america abandoned the moral highground in this 'war on terror'.

What was President Bush's personal role, if any, in giving a green light to harsh interrogation methods? That's never been clear, but now Democratic leaders are more determined than ever to find out. The CIA acknowledged last week, in response to a freedom of information lawsuit by the ACLU, that Bush signed a 2002 directive authorizing the creation of secret prisons overseas to hold and interrogate high-level Qaeda operatives.

snip

Dems also want to see a still secret Justice Department memo approving the use of particular interrogation techniques; critics have long suspected the document includes references to waterboarding and other methods that may constitute torture. (Former deputy White House counsel Timothy Flanigan last year confirmed in Senate testimony that he and Gonzales, then the White House counsel, were briefed about particular interrogation methods by Justice lawyers, but declined to say what they were.) Leahy has sought to subpoena the Justice memo in the past--a good indicator that he may well do so again when the Dems take control of the Senate in January.

The Gaggle - A daily notebook by Newsweek's political team.

You may as well quote some real objective 'material' from another one of your favorite sources - Salon.com. Newsweek has about as much veracity as Al Jazeera...

Interrogation methods, which have proved to be sufficient in most cases:
FM 34-52 Appendix H

Originally Posted by RDN

There may be the rare case where actual torture would bring out crucial info, but it's the exception rather than the norm.

Do you have access to some statistics about this, is it something you read on the internet, or did you just make it up for effect?

Can't find any stats, but it is something commonly stated, you can find the argument here, for example.Why do you think confessions and information using duress and coercion are not permissible in court?

It's also asserted by this US military source:

Probably the most unambiguous way to use someone merely as means is to torture him in order to get information he would not willingly give otherwise. In spite of this, the logic behind its practice is compelling. If you can make someone value his comfort or his life a lot more than his information, you stand a good chance of getting that information. When you can use that information to save the lives of innocent people, the logic becomes even more compelling. But, paradoxically this is rarely the case. It is a well-established fact that information gained under the duress of torture is rarely reliable. In fact, its practical benefits are so few and its assault on our moral sense is so great that torture is almost universally condemned.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You may as well quote some real objective 'material' from another one of your favorite sources - Salon.com. Newsweek has about as much veracity as Al Jazeera

you can make all the comments about newsweek that you want, but don't think that it has gone unnoticed that you haven't addressed the content of the quote.....that dems are going to start looking into whether or not bush gave the order to torture.

and by the way, al jazeera recently launched its english tv network...and how could they be less "fair and balanced" than foxnews? it would also be great to get a different perspective than the corporate angle from CNN. i doubt UBC will pick it up, but i'd watch if they did.

here's a link to their program schedule...

Al Jazeera English - Programme Schedule

Originally Posted by stroller

... would you, at some point, make up a story to please your 'torturer' so they'll ease inflicting pain on you? Is this a far-fetched scenario?...

Not at all far-fetched, but if the group doing the torturing took only a short time to find out you were lying, it might not be such a good idea. I'm sure the torturer would explain that to the torturee.

Originally Posted by stroller

Why do you think confessions and information using duress and coercion are not permissible in court?

I don't believe you can compare information obtained by questioning or torturing a suspect when you are fighting a war with the normal judicial practices of a society not at war. When you need information to save lives, it is a different situation.

Originally Posted by stroller

Probably the most unambiguous way to use someone merely as means is to torture him ...

The first sentence of the passage you quote appears to be missing a word or two - it doesn't make sense - but I understand what the passage is trying to say. I simply do not agree with it.

While our current crop of leaders are gutless, more concerned with votes than innocent lives, and are bound by pc niceties and democratic values, importantly, they are and will continue to be elected by us, unless or until we succumb to the radical elements of Islam. Though we probably need to suffer the humiliation of far greater atrocities than 911 before waking from our collective sleepwalk, some only to yawn, fwiw I believe time and events will compel us to seek out more focussed leaders, with hopefully a core that's prepared to set aside democratic weaknesses to confront the scourge head on and on their own terms; if the means include torture then let it be if the bottom line, seen through the smoke and mirrors, can save the next 3,000 or 300,000 lives.


keda
unfotunately, i agree with you, it will get worse before it has any chance of getting better.

as for torture we mere mortals will never really know what goes on.
if it serves the purpose of protecting the masses then who am i to condenm that.

It's too easy to think about torturing 'them' but what if it happens to 'us?'

How many of you who advocate torture would be willing to die for the cause you support? Would you be willing to undergo anything the torturer devises simply to prove you aren't a hypocrite? Days on end? Weeks on end?

Because a moral and just society where people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty doesn't stoop to such a low level as to torture suspects. I don't think it's fair that child molesters get fair trials, but, in the same sense if someone were to accuse me of such a crime I sure as hell wouldn't want the deck stacked against me. What recourse do you allow for the innocent person who are going to be tortured? "Ooops, sorry?"

I don't know what's worse: a purely random terror attack that has a 1 in 200,000,000 chance of killing me or the fact that some of us are willing to throw away their moral principles because a person 'might' know something.

Originally Posted by surasak

It's too easy to think about torturing 'them' but what if it happens to 'us?'

How many of you who advocate torture would be willing to die for the cause you support? Would you be willing to undergo anything the torturer devises simply to prove you aren't a hypocrite? Days on end? Weeks on end?

Because a moral and just society where people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty doesn't stoop to such a low level as to torture suspects. I don't think it's fair that child molesters get fair trials, but, in the same sense if someone were to accuse me of such a crime I sure as hell wouldn't want the deck stacked against me. What recourse do you allow for the innocent person who are going to be tortured? "Ooops,

sorry?"

I don't know what's worse: a purely random terror attack that has a 1 in 200,000,000 chance of killing me or the fact that some of us are willing to throw away their moral principles because a person 'might' know something.

good post