Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And for some reason you think that isn't already happening?
El Nox
Oh, I'm sure it is. And I think you'll notice that America doesn't seems any less safe.
My point, if it isn't clear, is that torture is ineffective.
And yes, there is science backing that up. Not that science gets you very far in today's world; too few misunderstand it. I've posted in this mess of a discussion a few times, but had neglected to vote because I felt the options were slanted in favor of torture. I finally decided to vote, which was the one about me letting a whole city die. But that's not how I see it. I wouldn't torture even if the stakes were as high as losing New York or LA because torture has been proven not the most effective.
Yeah, it's cheap and any idiot can do it, which is why we use it in the Middle East. Since the goal, as any person with the ability to read can see, isn't to end the war, the most effective method is not favorable. But in WWII, they had methods of interrogation that did not involve coercion. It involved persuasion.
See, over in Iraq, the "interrogation" is done by someone who is not required, and probably doesn't, have knowledge of the culture in which the prisoner is from. They also won't speak the language, they use a translator. Now, to me, it's really ****ing obvious that would not be an effective method. And apparently this was the case for US intelligence in WWII. They had people who spoke Japanese fluently, with a thorough understanding of Japanese culture, and extensive knowledge in psychology doing the interrogation sans torture. The results were overwhelmingly more reliable than results that could be produce with torture.
But again, science and reality doesn't get anyone very far. I'd be amazed if this got even one idiot to even consider changing their mind. And yes, I mean idiot. No, not for thinking torture works but for the inability to listen to an opposing argument.
Would you torture a terrorist if it meant you could get info to stop a bombing? How far would you go? Personally I firmly believe that even if we had to torture the terrorists family to death it would be worth it. War is a messy business, no one like to see how sausage is made. You can not have it for breakfast by petting a cow. Blood must be spilled. Where is your line? If it would save 100 people would you torture the child of a terrorist in front of them to get info? What if it was a Nuke and you would save a million people? IMO if we want to win we have to do what ever it takes. Extraordinary times take extraordinary measures. I know the Hippie liberal will say never the same Dukaus idiot answer that he would not want the death penalty for someone who rapped and murdered his wife. This only leads to more crime and more death. Some times you have to cut off the arm to save the body. Sorry liberal but this is the real world not some kumbya world.
Your premise is absurd. How would you know the terrorist is telling the truth? It's already been proven that torture doesn't work.
Oh, I'm sure it is. And I think you'll notice that America doesn't seems any less safe.
Interesting response, but it leaves me with the question ... If they are torturing Americans overseas (which you agree is happening) ... how to we get to the next sentence ... about America not seeming to be less safe? Looks like you were thinking ahead of your typing and left something out (I often do that).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
My point, if it isn't clear, is that torture is ineffective.
If you are wanting to say 100% effective, then you are correct. If you are saying it is ineffective on 100% of the people, you are also correct as shown in this statement ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And yes, there is science backing that up. Not that science gets you very far in today's world; too few misunderstand it
We can go completely off topic and talk about the "Science" of Global Warming, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Scientists world-wide have myriad opinions about same and readers cling to their 'self-appointed expert' as being the sole-source of truth on the matter. Hence we return to your statement about Science not getting you very far in today's world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Yeah, it's cheap and any idiot can do it, which is why we use it in the Middle East.
Yes, it is cheap and any idiot can do it ... but there is more to it than that. As I stated earlier in the thread, information about the location and intentions of the enemy is exceedingly time sensitive. We need go no further than the recent events in Brussels to see that. And before you say 20/20 hindsight, let me remind you that the Belgique's did not question their captive about upcoming operations, but questioned him about how/why he was radicalized. Would a time-intensive verbal discourse have provided the required information? We can only speculate, but one thing is certain ... look what happened shortly after his capture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
But in WWII, they had methods of interrogation that did not involve coercion. It involved persuasion.
Yes ... but what about time-sensitive information?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
See, over in Iraq, the "interrogation" is done by someone who is not required, and probably doesn't, have knowledge of the culture in which the prisoner is from. They also won't speak the language, they use a translator. Now, to me, it's really ****ing obvious that would not be an effective method.
I agree with this example. And for the record, I am not saying that our methods of extracting prisoner information are superior, but I return to the issue of time-sensitive information. And NO, putting women's undergarments on an Islamic prisoners head will not get him to give up anything of military value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And apparently this was the case for US intelligence in WWII. They had people who spoke Japanese fluently, with a thorough understanding of Japanese culture, and extensive knowledge in psychology doing the interrogation sans torture. The results were overwhelmingly more reliable than results that could be produce with torture.
Yes indeed, this did happen and it was effective. Yet again, missing from this equation is time-sensitive information. Going back to the title of this topic Would you Torture a Terrorist if it you could stop a bombing? we don't have weeks and months to gather information. It is not like we are trying to gather information on building a neutron bomb ... useful intel there does indeed require co-opertion of the captive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
But again, science and reality doesn't get anyone very far. I'd be amazed if this got even one idiot to even consider changing their mind. And yes, I mean idiot. No, not for thinking torture works but for the inability to listen to an opposing argument.
Well sir, at least one idiot has NOT changed his mind ... but has listened to and responded to each of your points. Reason being, I hold fast to the point of time-sensitive information. Not all information is time sensitive and therefore, torture for tortures' sake is not acceptable.
BTW ... I think the rational you use for your points is not bad ... I think that it is not applicable to the title of the thread.
I always find these questions rather ridiculous because none of us really know how we would react unless we ever get in to those situations.
By the way, the title to the thread does not match the question in the poll.
Now that's done with, I stand by what I said. I don't need your PC claptrap, I'm not a liberal. But I have been asked this question before, and I have put thought in to it before, and the easy answer with no thought behind it is to say: Yeah! Hrrrrr! Kill 'em all, the swine! Torture them! Make them suffaaaaaah!
Shut. Up.
That is an answer that is based on emotion and feelings. If we don't accept answers based on emotions and feelings for other subjects, why do the "use logic not feelings" people then turn around and answer with emotions and feelings on this subject?
So let me lay this out for you, Rambo, and maybe you'll use some logic instead of imagining someone over a spit with an apple in their mouth:
First of all, what are we answering? Are we answering the question in the thread title, or are we answering the question in the poll? In your thirst for blood, did you notice that they don't match up?
If it's the poll question, where do you draw the line? At the kids? How old? At the elderly parents? How old? Do they have any disabled family members? Do we torture them? Do we allow torture on all family members from infant on up to 90 year old, regardless of ability including mental ability? Do we pound on the mentally handicapped, who cares, they're part of the family?
If it's the title to the thread question, has torture been proven to be effective? What kind of torture is, and what kind of torture isn't? Is it documented anywhere that 'torture type x' proved effective and resulted in these responses which then gave information leading to Y which we were able to prevent from attacking'? Do we have that information? Have we successfully stopped a terrorist attack after torturing someone in a prison cell or a family member?
Second of all, how long do we torture? Until they give information? What if that information is inaccurate because they lied to us, (oh how shocking to think that might happen)? Do we torture them again? How many times?
Third, do you understand that people of different beliefs have different mindsets? What may work on you will NOT work on someone else? Let's pretend that you got your way. You got to go torture a family member. What do you think their options will be? Not tell you the truth and have you torture them to death, or tell you something and have their village, peers, family, other prisoners torture them to death (beating, etc)? Which way do you think that they would prefer to die? At the hands of their own, or with honor against you?
Does the US have suicide bombers? Do we have those in war time? Do we have a battalion of people who would be willing to be suicide bombers?
Well sir, at least one idiot has NOT changed his mind ... but has listened to and responded to each of your points. Reason being, I hold fast to the point of time-sensitive information. Not all information is time sensitive and therefore, torture for tortures' sake is not acceptable.
BTW ... I think the rational you use for your points is not bad ... I think that it is not applicable to the title of the thread.
El Nox
Actually time sensitivity is more a reason not to torture than to torture.
I mean sure you can point a gun at someone's head and demand the answers to life the universe and everything, and you might get an answer, but is the answer right? If you don't think it is what are you going to do? Kill your sole source of information?
Reality is that people are arrested or captured, they're processed, because you need to confirm ID, maybe the no-name really is a US citizen who is just a Taxi Driver from Jersey. They need to be given a round of interrogation (because they may not even try to resist), that doesn't just mean asking questions, you then need to go away and formulate other questions based on the answers given that allow you to cross reference the answers given (without giving the suspect the answer in the question) so that you can confirm or deny the consistency previous answers (it doesn't prove or disprove the accuracy of the answer, just that the answer is consistent, inconsistent answers are obviously inaccurate). Then the information give needs to be compared to what is known already to further confirm accuracy, and maybe another round of non-duress questioning based on that information (again not giving away the answer to the question in the question). Then you probably want to give the person a medical, because if they die because of some underlying undiagnosed issue, you've lost the information.
So now you're at least 6-8 hours post capture, before you could even consider adding duress, and that could take a long time. As in days maybe weeks if they're even involved in that operation, unless you're prepared to kill the guy in the process. You don't know what they know, they might be the kingpin of the entire organization in the US, so it might be wise to avoid killing them. I mean consider, hunger, how long before it really is effective, 24 hours, 48 hours, a week? Two? If you plan of making them a drug addict then forcing them to suffer withdrawal, how long maybe a week to 10 days for the addiction, then how long for the withdrawal, day, two. Sleep deprivation also needs lots of time. Sure there are higher risk more crude methods, you can slice them up like a Thanksgiving Turkey but they may not provide the information you want, and you're going to have problems explaining that isn't torture to the international community if Billy two fingers, no feet, no nuts appears on international media post interrogation.
Given the scenario, the bomb has probably gone off even before you start coercion, if it hasn't the guy in question doesn't know where the target is, or when the bombing is planned to occur (or you're not getting it without a serious fight). Since that would violate opsec which terror cells are all about, and why they're cells and not general association groups, you could have half a dozen people working for the same organization and the same place of employment and they'd never know they're working for the same organization.
So you torture the guy, what do you get? Some names, phone numbers and locations, great, but your bomb has already gone off, and there's a good chance the names are scattered to the wind, the phones are burners, and the locations are burn outs, and if you've had that suspect under surveillance for any period of time before capture, you already know most of those things. So that's a whole bunch of pretty much nothing, because the person captured was known to have gone dark, and therefore is assumed captured and compromised, so the operation rolled up itself. Now the capture may abort the bombing, but the torture isn't going to gain much of anything, if it even provides something useful.
So that's why timeliness of information runs counter to the use of torture.
Actually time sensitivity is more a reason not to torture than to torture.
I think you are wrong ... but my opinion shouldn't surprise YOU. One question ... have you served in combat where timely information (intel) was vital? And again I will point to Brussels where timely information could have saved lives (operative word ... "could" ... since this is speculation).
One question ... have you served in combat where timely information (intel) was vital? And again I will point to Brussels where timely information could have saved lives (operative word ... "could" ... since this is speculation).
El Nox
No, neither have you, unless you were in some military other than one of the NATO militaries.
You may have served in combat, I know I have, but never have I been deployed where information was not forthcoming until after the operation started. Nor have you, or if you have your CO should have been kicking the Regiment planning team around the planning room.
It doesn't happen, because that's not how the military works, if information is vital for an op, then, the op waits for that vital information. If the op doesn't wait, then the information isn't vital. That doesn't mean that there aren't busted ops, where the info was under estimated, or just plain wrong (like the Russians at Pristina Airport in Kosovo), but that was information that changed or was discovered after the start of the op, and the people who knew about the change were the guys on the ground, it's only later that the Intel guys find out, and then the can disseminate that intel across theater as appropriate.
Brussels wasn't an op, Brussels was a bunch of people planting bombs. That's not an operation, it's a security flaw. Totally different scenario, unless you were on a typical uniformed security guard detail in the military. If that were the case, it may lead me to conclude that you were a low value asset, and therefore someone with as much insight into this topic as any civvie, certainly people put on typical uniformed security guard details are not people who have a real understanding of counter terrorist operations I've worked security details before, but never typical and never uniformed, we used to call those guys the "targets".
I think you are wrong ... but my opinion shouldn't surprise YOU. One question ... have you served in combat where timely information (intel) was vital? And again I will point to Brussels where timely information could have saved lives (operative word ... "could" ... since this is speculation).
El Nox
I have
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
