An Inconvenient Truth -- Torture Works

[spacehabitats]

I know torture does not always work; not on everyone or all of the time.
It is barbarous, cruel, uncivilized, immoral, and repugnant. It is rarely is the best option, is never anything but a last resort, and inevitably exacts a terrible price on the perpetrator.


But sometimes it works.
Bad people who would never yield to any other form of persuasion, coercion, or trickery will sometimes give up vital information to avoid or stop pain.


Why is this important?
Because the Bush administration has used the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to stage an assault on a number of civil liberties AND to expand the power of the executive branch at the expense of constitutional checks and balances.


At the heart of this assault is the unspoken, and sometimes explicit, assumption that our rights ( privacy, habeas corpus, unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment) need to be sacrificed for the greater good.


Ron Paul understandably makes a blanket condemnation of torture, but leaves one question unaddressed.


What if a situation arises in which torture would be necessary?


If you can't think of any, let me assure you that for the vast majority of Americans coming up with a scenario is no problem.


For example, lets say that you are the president of the United States. The FBI has captured an American citizen, known to be a sympathizer of Al Qaeda, and there is over-whelming evidence that:

there is a dirty nuclear explosive device planted in a major American city
if detonated it will subject hundreds of thousands of innocent people to a slow and painful death and render said major city uninhabitable for hundreds of years
he knows the location of the dirty bomb
he knows how to disarm it
there are only a few hours until detonation
he's not talking.


What do you do?
If you say that you allow the bomb to go off rather than go against your principles, how about if we throw in the fact that you know that one or more of your loved ones (wife, girlfriend, son, daughter, etc.) are in that city?


Still not persuaded to use torture?
While I admire your idealism I can assure you that your stance is not shared by 99.9% of the rest of Americans.


The global fascists and their political and journalistic puppets have succeeded in defining the moral, legal, and ethical dilemmas presented by terrorism in such a way that most Americans are willing to give up their personal liberties as well as the constitution to avoid such a scenario.


But they are never presented with a very reasonable alternative to such problems
There is an answer to the “dirty bomb” scenario above; one that could save the city and yet preserves the constitution and the personal rights of millions of Americans. It applies a principle that could be used in other situations where our leaders are faced with conflicts between individual civil liberties and “the greater good”.


I will tell you what MY solution is in a moment.


What is YOUR answer?


P.S. No cheating! Only torture will extract the necessary information.

[Kade]

I know torture does not always work; not on everyone or all of the time.
It is barbarous, cruel, uncivilized, immoral, and repugnant. It is rarely is the best option, is never anything but a last resort, and inevitably exacts a terrible price on the perpetrator.


But sometimes it works.
Bad people who would never yield to any other form of persuasion, coercion, or trickery will sometimes give up vital information to avoid or stop pain.


Why is this important?
Because the Bush administration has used the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to stage an assault on a number of civil liberties AND to expand the power of the executive branch at the expense of constitutional checks and balances.


At the heart of this assault is the unspoken, and sometimes explicit, assumption that our rights ( privacy, habeas corpus, unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment) need to be sacrificed for the greater good.


Ron Paul understandably makes a blanket condemnation of torture, but leaves one question unaddressed.


What if a situation arises in which torture would be necessary?


If you can't think of any, let me assure you that for the vast majority of Americans coming up with a scenario is no problem.


For example, lets say that you are the president of the United States. The FBI has captured an American citizen, known to be a sympathizer of Al Qaeda, and there is over-whelming evidence that:

there is a dirty nuclear explosive device planted in a major American city
if detonated it will subject hundreds of thousands of innocent people to a slow and painful death and render said major city uninhabitable for hundreds of years
he knows the location of the dirty bomb
he knows how to disarm it
there are only a few hours until detonation
he's not talking.


What do you do?
If you say that you allow the bomb to go off rather than go against your principles, how about if we throw in the fact that you know that one or more of your loved ones (wife, girlfriend, son, daughter, etc.) are in that city?


Still not persuaded to use torture?
While I admire your idealism I can assure you that your stance is not shared by 99.9% of the rest of Americans.


The global fascists and their political and journalistic puppets have succeeded in defining the moral, legal, and ethical dilemmas presented by terrorism in such a way that most Americans are willing to give up their personal liberties as well as the constitution to avoid such a scenario.


But they are never presented with a very reasonable alternative to such problems
There is an answer to the “dirty bomb” scenario above; one that could save the city and yet preserves the constitution and the personal rights of millions of Americans. It applies a principle that could be used in other situations where our leaders are faced with conflicts between individual civil liberties and “the greater good”.


I will tell you what MY solution is in a moment.


What is YOUR answer?


P.S. No cheating! Only torture will extract the necessary information.



Evacuate the city, and put him in the center of it.

(you didn't say we didn't know which city, and we have a few hours.)

Anyway, the scenario is impossible. If you don't know the major city. Call for an evacuation of all the major cities over the airwaves... people will die in the stampede, but many will be saved.

Open society works.

[eloquensanity]

Evacuate the city, and put him in the center of it.

(you didn't say we didn't know which city, and we have a few hours.)


I agree, it would probably work faster than torture too.

[james1844]

The only problem with that is WMD use by terrorist organizations is virtually non-existent.

Its a totally fictional scenario.

[Kotin]

your title sounds like part 2 of Al Gore's movie.

[MRoCkEd]

This only happens in the show "24".
Jack Bauer... is... fictional.

[spacehabitats]

Evacuate the city.I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, we do NOT know the city, or the exact location of the bomb. Besides given the example of Katrina / New Orleans do you really think you could do this in a matter of hours.


Can't happen, they don't have WMD's.Possibly true, but my challenge was to assume that they did.
I said this was going to be inconvenient. It is too easy to cop out of the moral dilemma to say that it "just cain't happen".

By the way, most people would not find this situation to be inconceivable.
And this is not just theoretical.
We have seen variations on the theme of "we need these extraordinary powers and you need to give up some of your personal liberties or terrible things are going to happen" used numerous times by this administration.
I guarnatee that we will continue to see this in the future, regardless of which major candidate wins in November.

OK, a clue to MY solution.

It involves applying the principle of personal responsibility and heroism, by the president.

[Kade]

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, we do NOT know the city, or the exact location of the bomb. Besides given the example of Katrina / New Orleans do you really think you could do this in a matter of hours.

Possibly true, but my challenge was to assume that they did.
I said this was going to be inconvenient. It is too easy to cop out of the moral dilemma to say that it "just cain't happen".

By the way, most people would not find this situation to be inconceivable.
And this is not just theoretical.
We have seen variations on the theme of "we need these extraordinary powers and you need to give up some of your personal liberties or terrible things are going to happen" used numerous times by this administration.
I guarnatee that we will continue to see this in the future, regardless of which major candidate wins in November.

OK, a clue to MY solution.

It involves applying the principle of personal responsibility and heroism, by the president.


Send out Jack Bauer....

If we don't know the city. Evacuate them all.

[Ozwest]

Evacuate the city, and put him in the center of it.

(you didn't say we didn't know which city, and we have a few hours.)

Anyway, the scenario is impossible. If you don't know the major city. Call for an evacuation of all the major cities over the airwaves... people will die in the stampede, but many will be saved.

Open society works.

Bueno! HaHa

Gotta love that lateral thinking.

[Alawn]

Torture does not work!!!!!

When people are tortured they will agree and admit to anything to make it stop. They will say anything the torturer wants them to say. 99% of the time they confess to things they never did just to make it stop. It is by far the most inaccurate way to get information or a confession. Information from torture is never reliable at all. If I tortured you long enough you would say you killed George Washington.

Also people are presumed innocent and should not be subjected to that.

That sort of situation has never existed in the history of the world and it never will. The odds of being in a situation like that are a billion to one. Made up scenarios like this are used to get people to be ok with torture. The scenario never happens then they use it on the common person.

[Danke]

It seems the FBI has a lot of information already. How did they get it? And how would torture get an honest answer?


They know:

1. there is a dirty nuclear explosive device planted in a major American city
3. he knows the location of the dirty bomb
4. he knows how to disarm it
5. there are only a few hours until detonation

The FBI knows this but not the placement, hmmm, riiiight. :rolleyes:

[yongrel]

Murder works too. That doesn't make it right.

[Ozwest]

Ummm...

Whether it works or not.

It's wrong.

America is (was) supposed to be a beacon.

Now you are a travesty.

[Tarzan]

Torture... you mean like tieing me to a chair... taping my eyes open... and forcing me to watch an Al Gore PowerPoint presentation???

Heck, I would say anything to make that stop.

[SLSteven]

We DON'T torture!....Bush said so

[Maverick]

Why to these scenarios always assume that there's absolutely no other way to find the device other than gaining the info from the suspect? Couldn't somebody in a city of 20 million people (I assume we're talking about a big city here), oh I don't know, find the thing on accident? Some beat cop goes to check out a suspicious vehicle and there it is, or some random pedestrian trips over it.

There ya go. Bomb found and crisis averted. Dumb fucking luck - probably just about as reliable as torture is.

[spacehabitats]

I have never watched "24" (believe it or not) but I think you are getting the picture.

The president breaks the law, tortures the suspect, and saves the city.

He does NOT try to justify his actions as being allowed under the constitution.

He does NOT deny what he did. (Hiding behind executive privilege.)

He admits that he broke the law, proclaims that this in NO WAY SETS A PRECEDENT and should never be used as an excuse to expand the powers of the executive branch.

In other words, he breaks himself (or at least risks impeachment) rather than breaking or undermining the constitution.

This is the moral/political equivalent of throwing yourself on the hand grenade to save your buddies.


Personally, I think it would be political suicide for the congress to impeach him in these circumstances, but that is the risk he would have to take.

And personally this is what I would do rather than allow hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children suffer.

Won't happen, of course not, because we have long ago stopped asking our leaders to truly be heroic.

And because of that, cowards like Bush are being allowed to destroy our country in order to give themselves an easy out politically.

[ninepointfive]

assuming all other implausibilities in the story.....


yes. rip his head off if it gets the information.

[Kade]

I have never watched "24" (believe it or not) but I think you are getting the picture.

The president breaks the law, tortures the suspect, and saves the city.

He does NOT try to justify his actions as being allowed under the constitution.

He does NOT deny what he did. (Hiding behind executive privilege.)

He admits that he broke the law, proclaims that this in NO WAY SETS A PRECEDENT and should never be used as an excuse to expand the powers of the executive branch.

In other words, he breaks himself (or at least risks impeachment) rather than breaking or undermining the constitution.

This is the moral/political equivalent of throwing yourself on the hand grenade to save your buddies.


Personally, I think it would be political suicide for the congress to impeach him in these circumstances, but that is the risk he would have to take.

And personally this is what I would do rather than allow hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children suffer.

Won't happen, of course not, because we have long ago stopped asking our leaders to truly be heroic.

And because of that, cowards like Bush are being allowed to destroy our country in order to give themselves an easy out politically.

There is nothing heroic about torture.

[ninepointfive]

There is nothing heroic about torture.

sometimes reading your posts is torturous, but at least you'd vote for Paul: meaning we're brothers after all.

also, whoever it is criticizing Ozwest for moving to Australia... well, he's our brother too so stop the nagging!!

[amy31416]

I have never watched "24" (believe it or not) but I think you are getting the picture.

The president breaks the law, tortures the suspect, and saves the city.

He does NOT try to justify his actions as being allowed under the constitution.

He does NOT deny what he did. (Hiding behind executive privilege.)

He admits that he broke the law, proclaims that this in NO WAY SETS A PRECEDENT and should never be used as an excuse to expand the powers of the executive branch.

In other words, he breaks himself (or at least risks impeachment) rather than breaking or undermining the constitution.

This is the moral/political equivalent of throwing yourself on the hand grenade to save your buddies.


Personally, I think it would be political suicide for the congress to impeach him in these circumstances, but that is the risk he would have to take.

And personally this is what I would do rather than allow hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children suffer.

Won't happen, of course not, because we have long ago stopped asking our leaders to truly be heroic.

And because of that, cowards like Bush are being allowed to destroy our country in order to give themselves an easy out politically.

Well said, but the flip-side is that he tortures someone who's innocent or someone who won't talk, no matter what. So the city still goes up and now he's tortured someone.

Is he still a hero?

[Kade]

Well said, but the flip-side is that he tortures someone who's innocent or someone who won't talk, no matter what. So the city still goes up and now he's tortured someone.

Is he still a hero?

EXACTLY!

In fact this points out a major fallacy here... that every assumption is taken for granted, except the one where torture actually works... it's a whole list of nonsensical and impossible scenarios, and at the very end, a assumption of it's valid application...

The city blows, the man is tortured... is the President even going to admit anything?

[Alawn]

I have never watched "24" (believe it or not) but I think you are getting the picture.

The president breaks the law, tortures the suspect, and saves the city.

He does NOT try to justify his actions as being allowed under the constitution.

He does NOT deny what he did. (Hiding behind executive privilege.)

He admits that he broke the law, proclaims that this in NO WAY SETS A PRECEDENT and should never be used as an excuse to expand the powers of the executive branch.

In other words, he breaks himself (or at least risks impeachment) rather than breaking or undermining the constitution.

This is the moral/political equivalent of throwing yourself on the hand grenade to save your buddies.


Personally, I think it would be political suicide for the congress to impeach him in these circumstances, but that is the risk he would have to take.

And personally this is what I would do rather than allow hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children suffer.

Won't happen, of course not, because we have long ago stopped asking our leaders to truly be heroic.

And because of that, cowards like Bush are being allowed to destroy our country in order to give themselves an easy out politically.

If the president did this he should publicly be put to death to deter other leaders from doing the same thing.

[SLSteven]

The FBI has captured an American citizen, known to be a sympathizer of Al Qaeda, and there is over-whelming evidence that:[/SIZE][/FONT]

there is a dirty nuclear explosive device planted in a major American city
if detonated it will subject hundreds of thousands of innocent people to a slow and painful death and render said major city uninhabitable for hundreds of years
he knows the location of the dirty bomb
he knows how to disarm it
there are only a few hours until detonation
he's not talking.





Who manufac...er....discovered the overwhelming evidence?

How many times has a scenario like this occured in the history of the universe?

[yongrel]

If the president did this he should publicly be put to death to deter other leaders from doing the same thing.

Wait... you condemn torture but condone example executions? My brain hurts.

[MRoCkEd]

If the president did this he should publicly be put to death to deter other leaders from doing the same thing.
the death penalty does not deter crime

[Alawn]

Wait... you condemn torture but condone example executions? My brain hurts.

Theoretically I don't have anything against execution if the crime is bad enough. The only problem is I am afraid of wrongful convictions and an innocent man being killed so it probably isn't worth it. I might make an exception for presidents or congress though. In the scenario he came out and admitted it on his own.


the death penalty does not deter crime

Yes it does but more importantly it would deter crazy presidents from thinking they are above the law

Anyway this whole scenario is stupid. The ticking time bomb thing would never happen, torture doesn't work, the tortured person would probably be innocent anyway, and the president would just make someone else do it then never admit to anything.

[spacehabitats]

Unless the alternative is to sacrifice xxxxx lives in the name of YOUR principles.

I respect those who say they would never torture anyone under any circumstance.
At least they are being honest with themselves about their principles and priorities.

Those of you who object to the conditions are simply weaseling out of the dilemma.

I appreciate all of your points, but still insist that ultimately a leader finds himself in the situation where hard choices are unavoidable.

Life has a way of doing that.

I think that no one has ever even brought up the possibility that Bush could have simply broken the law, keeping our rights and our constitution intact, is a sign of how brainwashed we have all become.

Immediately after 9-11 there may have been a window of opportunity when we could have worked our way back through the links of Al Qaeda and/or captured Osama.

But we diddled around, telegraphing our moves to the Taliban, treating the terrorists as though they were covered under the Geneva convention (?!?!) and generally setting ourselves up for the next "Viet Nam".

This was NOT an accident.


By the way, sorry if I have offended anyone, but I personally can not imagine doing anything else if I found myself in such a position.

And it would not have taken a hundred thousand lives to tip MY hand; the life of any one of my family (wife, daughter, or son) would have been more than sufficient.

Do you really think I am that much different than your average American?

[Alawn]

Those of you who object to the conditions are simply weaseling out of the dilemma.

No it isn't. This is a technique that is always used to condition the public into thinking torture/some other horrible thing is ok so they can then start using it on regular people.

It always starts out with some unbelievable emergency or only for those undesirables then it spills over to innocent people.

We actually have a president who thinks it is ok to crush the testicles of a suspects child in front of him in order to get info out of the father.

[amy31416]

By the way, sorry if I have offended anyone, but I personally can not imagine doing anything else if I found myself in such a position.

And it would not have taken a hundred thousand lives to tip MY hand; the life of any one of my family (wife, daughter, or son) would have been more than sufficient.

Do you really think I am that much different than your average American?

I'm not offended at all, you've made many good points. I've given similar things thought and if I personally knew with as close to 100% accuracy that this specific person held the knowledge of something that could save thousands of lives, yeah, that'd be a no-brainer for an individual.

The problem that I see is in government having the power to do so. If I choose to commit an illegal or immoral act for what I view as the greater good, then that is a choice I've made, and I have to pay the consequences. The problem with the government is that there are no consequences for such things.

In the case of torture and abuse of innocent (and even guilty) people, the government and military is above the law. And that's a huge problem.

[SLSteven]

Torturers should beware! Look what happened to Saddam Hussein.

[MGreen]

I use my truth-seeking vision to extract the information from the suspect.

There you go: a fairy tale solution to a fairy tale problem.

[Hamer]

Torture works? I'm lost

[SLSteven]

For example, lets say that you are the president of the United States. The FBI has captured an American citizen, known to be a sympathizer of Al Qaeda, and there is over-whelming evidence that:

there is a dirty nuclear explosive device planted in a major American city
if detonated it will subject hundreds of thousands of innocent people to a slow and painful death and render said major city uninhabitable for hundreds of years
he knows the location of the dirty bomb
he knows how to disarm it
there are only a few hours until detonation
he's not talking.



Lets say the terrorists have 2 people...one who plants the actual bomb and one who plants the fake in a different city. The one who plants the fake is the one for whom the "overwhelming evidence" exists. This is a more likely scenario.

[lucius]

'Needs of the many, yada, yada, yada', you are using 'approved' selling points. In reality, torture is an extremely effective way to control large numbers of persons. Just ask yourself if you would like this happening in your neighborhood.

The reality:

"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.' Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April Fool, motherfucker.' Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."
-- Vincent Okamoto, combat officer (Lieutenant) in Vietnam in 1968, and recipient of Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest award conferred by the U.S. Army. Wounded 3 times. He was also an intelligence liaison officer for the Phoenix Program for 2 months in 1968. Quote is from page 361 of the hardback 2003 first edition of the book "Patriots: the Vietnam War remembered from all sides."

"Phung Hoang [a mythical Vietnamese omnipresent bird of prey] was the first comprehensive system of rump legality, kidnapping, torture, and assassination ever designed and run by the United States. ... Commenced in late 1967 [ironically after the 1967 'Summer of Love' in the USA!], the [CIA] Agency's Phung Hoang lasted in one form or another until the very end of the war [April 1975]."
- - From the book "Our War," by David Harris, 1996, p.100, [bracketed] info, and emphasis, added. Quote describes Phoenix Program.

[Quote begins. Emphasis added] "These things" included: rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electrical shock ("the Bell Telephone Hour") rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; "the water treatment"; "the airplane," in which a prisoner's arms were tied behind the back and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair, after which he or she was beaten; beatings with rubber hoses and whips; and the use of police dogs to maul prisoners. All this and more occurred in PICs [Province Intelligence Coordinating Committees], one of which was run by Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT) while he was the CIA officer running the PIC in Phu Yen Province in 1972. [Quote ends].
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine05152004.html
*May 15, 2004. Douglas Valentine article: ABCs of CIA Interrogation Methods. The Phoenix Program, Revisited.

250,000 people killed in this manner, throws due-process/rule-of-law out the fucking window!

[Ozwest]

Let's say...

Every man you torture breeds 1000 potential terrorists.

And... America looks like a fascist shit.

Good luck to captured U.S. soldiers.

[dannno]

For example, lets say that you are the president of the United States. The FBI has captured an American citizen, known to be a sympathizer of Al Qaeda, and there is over-whelming evidence that:

there is a dirty nuclear explosive device planted in a major American city
if detonated it will subject hundreds of thousands of innocent people to a slow and painful death and render said major city uninhabitable for hundreds of years
he knows the location of the dirty bomb
he knows how to disarm it
there are only a few hours until detonation
he's not talking.


What do you do?


I would ask the Director of the CIA where the device is and how to disarm it.

[spacehabitats]

'Needs of the many, yada, yada, yada', you are using 'approved' selling points. In reality, torture is an extremely effective way to control large numbers of persons. Just ask yourself if you would like this happening in your neighborhood.

The reality:

"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.' Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April Fool, motherfucker.' Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."
-- Vincent Okamoto, combat officer (Lieutenant) in Vietnam in 1968, and recipient of Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest award conferred by the U.S. Army. Wounded 3 times. He was also an intelligence liaison officer for the Phoenix Program for 2 months in 1968. Quote is from page 361 of the hardback 2003 first edition of the book "Patriots: the Vietnam War remembered from all sides."

"Phung Hoang [a mythical Vietnamese omnipresent bird of prey] was the first comprehensive system of rump legality, kidnapping, torture, and assassination ever designed and run by the United States. ... Commenced in late 1967 [ironically after the 1967 'Summer of Love' in the USA!], the [CIA] Agency's Phung Hoang lasted in one form or another until the very end of the war [April 1975]."
- - From the book "Our War," by David Harris, 1996, p.100, [bracketed] info, and emphasis, added. Quote describes Phoenix Program.

[Quote begins. Emphasis added] "These things" included: rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electrical shock ("the Bell Telephone Hour") rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; "the water treatment"; "the airplane," in which a prisoner's arms were tied behind the back and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair, after which he or she was beaten; beatings with rubber hoses and whips; and the use of police dogs to maul prisoners. All this and more occurred in PICs [Province Intelligence Coordinating Committees], one of which was run by Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT) while he was the CIA officer running the PIC in Phu Yen Province in 1972. [Quote ends].
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine05152004.html
*May 15, 2004. Douglas Valentine article: ABCs of CIA Interrogation Methods. The Phoenix Program, Revisited.

250,000 people killed in this manner, throws due-process/rule-of-law out the fucking window!


Torture does NOT work on wholesale level. As people have pointed out, it does breed more terrorists, insurgents, etc.

And the information in general is unreliable.
But there are ways of bypassing defenses, and I'm not just talking about things as crude as truth serum, voice stress analyzers or even polygraphs.

But none of these could or even should be available to police, CIA, or troops in the field.

I am not advocating or even condoning torture as a policy.


Torture should never be legalized.

And as far as "torturers beware", I agree. Why do you think I made the scenario so extreme?

Because it should never be done except in a situation in which the torturer would be willing to give his own life (reputation, office, place in history, etc.) to accomplish the goal (saving many lives, etc.).

Everyone is still thinking in terms of a society allowing or condoning torture.

That is exactly what this avoids, and what Guantanamo allows.

It is precisely the attempt to find "allowable interrogation" techniques (waterboarding, sensory overload/deprivation, humiliation etc.) that is the slippery slope.

This isn't about what WE should do.

This is about one man making a decision, and taking responsibility for his actions.

If you don't understand that, then you have missed the whole point.

[Acala]

Let's say aliens come to earth and they give you an ultimatum: either rape and kill all the children on earth or the earth will be destroyed. No way out. You must decide.

The whole thing is silly.

Here is the real answer to the OP scenario - stop screwing people over so they have nothing to lose and a couple generations of hatred driving them to revenge. Then this scenario will never happen. THAT is the answer to people who present the torture scenario.

[lucius]

Torture does NOT work on wholesale level. As people have pointed out, it does breed more terrorists, insurgents, etc.
...

What pie-in-the-sky bullshit! Tell that to the 100+ million that died in the soviet union's gulags, effective in El Salvador as well. Torture is what we are doing, an important aspect of US policy agenda as we gear up for total war.

Does might make right? I leave you to your fairytale.

[mediahasyou]

Constitution

over

president

[AmericaFyeah92]

i don't have a problem with an individual agent/s deciding to torture the guy for info, and then taking the heat for it. (i would personally campaign to pardon the agent in the above situation)

the problem is when the PRESIDENT or other high-ups gets the authority to order torture.

Its not the actual act, its the power that comes with it.

[AmericaFyeah92]

and if the president faced up to his actions like the original poster said, and put himself up for judgement, i would campaign to pardon him as well.

[Mongoose470]

Torture does not work!!!!!

When people are tortured they will agree and admit to anything to make it stop. They will say anything the torturer wants them to say. 99% of the time they confess to things they never did just to make it stop. It is by far the most inaccurate way to get information or a confession. Information from torture is never reliable at all. If I tortured you long enough you would say you killed George Washington.

Also people are presumed innocent and should not be subjected to that.

That sort of situation has never existed in the history of the world and it never will. The odds of being in a situation like that are a billion to one. Made up scenarios like this are used to get people to be ok with torture. The scenario never happens then they use it on the common person.

That really is the issue.

2+2=5???

Point: Torture may be effective at making someone say what you want them to say (a wide open door to injustice and oppression which is self evident,) but as a means of finding the "truth" all studies have shown it is ineffective. A comfy chair would be just as effective as a torture rack.

Torture operates on the presumption of guilt, not on the truth.

[asgardshill]

I'd send my ex-wife to sleep with the terrorist, but there are some things that no human being should be put through.

[SeanEdwards]

Unless the alternative is to sacrifice xxxxx lives in the name of YOUR principles.

I respect those who say they would never torture anyone under any circumstance.


They're lying to themselves, or they just lack sufficient imagination. I seriously doubt we have any real saints reading this forum, but we do have a large number of self-righteous pricks.



At least they are being honest with themselves about their principles and priorities.


No they aren't. They're being sanctimonious assholes.

"I would never stoop to such an evil immoral act, and anyone who would even consider such a thing should be hung from a tree, set on fire, and shot." - as posted by 20 random anti-torture goofballs.

Torture should never be legal, condoned, or used in wholesale way. And when it's required, it should be done quietly, in a dark hole somewhere, and the person being tortured should never be seen again.

[SeanEdwards]

but as a means of finding the "truth" all studies have shown it is ineffective.

Right, that's why humans have resorted to it's use since the dawn of time, because it's so ineffective.

If it really didn't work, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the marketplace for finding out secrets would have rejected the usage of torture long ago.

[Danke]

Right, that's why humans have resorted to it's use since the dawn of time, because it's so ineffective.

If it really didn't work, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the marketplace for finding out secrets would have rejected the usage of torture long ago.

It (torture) is being publicized as something we do, not because it is effective (which competent military intelligence officers agree it is not), but because of the fear and control aspect over us now that we know our government has no qualms using it on anyone (including U.S. Citizens).

[SeanEdwards]

It (torture) is being publicized as something we do, not because it is effective (which competent military intelligence officers agree it is not), but because of the fear and control aspect over us now that we know our government has no qualms using it on anyone (including U.S. Citizens).

Competent military officers aren't commenting on the effectiveness of torture, because nobody is actually admitting to performing real torture. They may comment on the ineffectiveness of the weak stress inducing questioning crap that they pull at GITMO, but that shit ain't torture. If there are any real cases of torture occuring in this most recent war on terror crap, they are happening somewhere far away, and ain't nobody talking about them.

[amy31416]

I'd send my ex-wife to sleep with the terrorist, but there are some things that no human being should be put through.

Ya know, a lot of your comments on the ex are funny--but perhaps, you need to flush ye olde psyche. :)

[Brian4Liberty]

There is no need to torture anyone. Just brainwash them instead. Show them hours and hours of subliminal, targeted, fictional entertainment, and you can convince them to believe, say or do anything...

[TastyWheat]

Well assume a little girl knew the code to disarm a nuclear bomb but she wouldn't tell you unless you raped her. Would you do it? I can make up crazy hypothetical situations too y'know. The point is that it may never be necessary to violate the rule of law to save lives. If anything, torture should be the exception and not the rule.

[revolutionary8]

Well assume a little girl knew the code to disarm a nuclear bomb but she wouldn't tell you unless you raped her. Would you do it? I can make up crazy hypothetical situations too y'know. The point is that it may never be necessary to violate the rule of law to save lives. If anything, torture should be the exception and not the rule.

You are clearly insane by reason of watching too much "24" IMHO

[TastyWheat]

That was a good season.

[revolutionary8]

That was a good season.
/// joke.

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Could you please provide a link showing torture works?

Or proof that "terrorists" have access to dirty bombs?

Or explain a situation where we could know the terrorist, capture him, but not know where the city is or the bomb is located?

This is all fiction.

[asgardshill]

Ya know, a lot of your comments on the ex are funny--but perhaps, you need to flush ye olde psyche. :)

That's a fair observation.

[IRO-bot]

How would torture work?
If there is only a few hours he could
A. Lie about the city
B. Lie about the placement of the bomb
C. Lie about how to defuse the bomb

All tactics would end the torture so they could verify what he said. By the time it was done, everyone would be dead.

Dumb question. Torture doesn't work.
Watch Rendition, good movie.

[Danke]

Competent military officers aren't commenting on the effectiveness of torture, because nobody is actually admitting to performing real torture.

Sure they have. Now and for many years. Where have you been? What capacity did you serve in the military?

[Danke]

A comfy chair would be just as effective as a torture rack.


NO NO! Not the comfy chair!


http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/tt11.jpg

http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/tt12.jpg

[Acala]

Right, that's why humans have resorted to it's use since the dawn of time, because it's so ineffective.

If it really didn't work, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the marketplace for finding out secrets would have rejected the usage of torture long ago.

Historically, torture has been used primarily for two purposes: to get confessions out of people and to terrify people. Neither one has anything to do with getting accurate information. So even if torture were known to be 100% ineffective at getting truthful answers, it would still be used.

[acptulsa]

It (torture) is being publicized as something we do, not because it is effective (which competent military intelligence officers agree it is not), but because of the fear and control aspect over us now that we know our government has no qualms using it on anyone (including U.S. Citizens).

And the harm? In World War II German and Italian soldiers would surrender just because the food and treatment in U.S. prisoner camps was superior to life in the Axis armed force they were in. How many lives were saved because of this? How instrumental was it in our victory? The value cannot be quantified but the trend was widespread and the benefit huge.

Doing things the right way produces innumerable and incredibly diverse rewards.

[HOLLYWOOD]

And the harm? In World War II German and Italian soldiers would surrender just because the food and treatment in U.S. prisoner camps was superior to life in the Axis armed force they were in. How many lives were saved because of this? How instrumental was it in our victory? The value cannot be quantified but the trend was widespread and the benefit huge.

Doing things the right way produces innumerable and incredibly diverse rewards.

On the other hand, let look at BLOWBACK:

WWII during the Battle of the Bulge: German SS Troops took captured American prisoners rounded them up and machine gunned them down. When WORD GOT OUT, this gave every ALLIED SOLDIER the REASON/JUSTIFICATION NOT to Surrender and to fight to their last breath. This is Why BASTOGNE, France never fell or surrendered though being surrounded.

The American government, along with the USUAL SUSPECTS actions, have given MULTIPLE REASONS for the world to NEVER deal rationally with American IMPERIALISM.

[SeanEdwards]

Sure they have. Now and for many years. Where have you been? What capacity did you serve in the military?

Waterboarding and peeing on a koran are not torture.

[spacehabitats]

But I only have time for one right now.

Blowback:

Absolutely. This is the terrible result of torture when applied as a policy and especially sanctioned by an army during a war with another nation.

That is why the Geneva Convention, a treaty between nations with established governments, visible leaders, conventional armies, civilian populations, etc. was a good idea.
It tends to curtail the tit-for-tat escalation of mistreatment of captured enemy soldiers that both sides would detest.

This is also why it is ridiculous to apply the Geneva Convention to "soldiers" who are not members of any nation's army (let alone one of the signatory nations), whose leadership is so secretive or diffuse that no effective retaliation or even negotiation is possible, who represent no civilian population or geographic area against which retaliation is possible.

In other words, you can't make a treaty with terrorists so any "treaty" that you honor will ONLY limit your own actions, not the enemie's.

And in practical terms, its hard to fear escalation of your enemy's mistreatment of captured soldiers or civilians when their behavior starts with torture and beheading.

Stimulating recruitment as another form of blowback is also a valid concern about torture in general.

I don't think most people, even in the Islamic world, would consider it unreasonable to resort to torture to prevent the kind of holocaust I tried to describe.

In fact, even if the torture failed, most people would be so shocked and horrified by the terrorist act that it would be even more likely to be forgiven.

In such a case, sympathy for the tortured terrorist would probably be the least of our worries.

This is another example of why torture should never be legally sanctioned or condoned, even if ordered by the highest ranking officials of a state.

And it is especially absurd to worry about this scenario being a recruiting tool when the presence of tens of thousands of our troops in Iraq is so much more helpful to Al Qaeda.

[acptulsa]

We managed to beat the Imperial Japanese armed forces without sinking to their level of prisoner treatment. Quite possibly more than a little of the secret of our success was the fact that we didn't.

[Danke]

And the harm? In World War II German and Italian soldiers would surrender just because the food and treatment in U.S. prisoner camps was superior to life in the Axis armed force they were in. How many lives were saved because of this? How instrumental was it in our victory? The value cannot be quantified but the trend was widespread and the benefit huge.

Doing things the right way produces innumerable and incredibly diverse rewards.

Either you didn't carefully read what I wrote, or your first sentence contradicts what followed.


"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

[hillertexas]

Watch Rendition, good movie.


"I fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything."

-William Shakespeare

[Mongoose470]

Right, that's why humans have resorted to it's use since the dawn of time, because it's so ineffective.

If it really didn't work, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the marketplace for finding out secrets would have rejected the usage of torture long ago.

By that logic, we should still go to faith healers. After all, if it didn't work, we wouldn't still be seeing them.

Polygraphs are becoming more widely accepted even though science has debunked the myth that they detect lies more accurately than a coin flip.

If you had carefully read my post, which you didn't, you will see that Mongoose said it was effective as a means of getting people to say what you want them to say...

that's why it is used.

However it is not an effective means at getting the truth out of somebody.

[SeanEdwards]

However it is not an effective means at getting the truth out of somebody.

Let's just imagine a scenario. You're tied to a chair, and I have firm grip on your genitals with some pliers. How long do you figure it will take until you tell me the pin code to your ATM card? Yeah, you can make up a number, and when I try that made up number and it doesn't work what do you think is going to happen? Sooner or later, you will cough up the real pin number. Very very few individuals will have the willpower to let their body be destroyed rather than spill the beans.

That's just obvious. And that's why these arguments that torture doesn't work are just silly. We reject torture, not because it's ineffective, but because it's evil monstrous shit that horrifies our better nature.

[Danke]

Let's just imagine a scenario. You're tied to a chair, and I have firm grip on your genitals with some pliers. How long do you figure it will take until you tell me the pin code to your ATM card?

Again, a limited scenario like the OP. Where all the facts are known already about suspect, in this case, it is his ATM card you possess. But carry it out further. Your wife knows you have been abducted, so now either the cops are waiting for your ATM card to be used, or it has already been disabled.

In a military situation, sadly it is not as simple as in your example. The Vietnamese tortured our men for years, but what did they gain from it? Any real "actionable intelligence."

Another problem with torture is everyone reacts to it differently. And if you are given bad new data, that can be worse than no new data at all. Diverts time and resources away from acting on any real intelligence. Studies have shown each prisoner displayed strengths and weaknesses dependent on his or her own character. In all matters relating to pain, the individual remains the determinant. You never know what you are getting is reliable.

[FindLiberty]

Historically, torture has been used primarily for two purposes: to get confessions out of people and to terrify people. Neither one has anything to do with getting accurate information. So even if torture were known to be 100% ineffective at getting truthful answers, it would still be used.

Bingo - You win the prize for the correct answer and your suffering is now over! Unfortunately this includes a bullet to the head before you can be released...

[Danke]

Bingo - You win the prize for the correct answer and your suffering is now over! Unfortunately this includes a bullet to the head before you can be released...

I just want to sing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc-HLFxuTn4


Remember, waterboarding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2wZ5A2zRA&feature=related)is not torture. :eek:

[Zolah]

Waterboarding and peeing on a koran are not torture.

Pretty sure waterboarding is torture...unless by stating it's an "extreme interrogation method" or whatever their euphenism is, stops it becoming torture.

[SeanEdwards]

Pretty sure waterboarding is torture...unless by stating it's an "extreme interrogation method" or whatever their euphenism is, stops it becoming torture.

Waterboarding isn't very sociable, but it's definetley a step down from other possibilities. It really doesn't belong in the same category as fingernail pulling, electrocution, forced eating of feces, beating, etc.

There is something else funny about the whole debate around the "torture" conducted at GITMO and abu ghraib. Domestic police forces in the U.S. routinely use more traumatic forms of torture on innocent civilians in the normal course of their work. Police use attack dogs, clubs, electric shock, chemical irritants, fists, and so on, and that normal activity doesn't elicit a thousandth the outrage that people express towards the silly things they did when questioning people caught in the WOT.

One of the forms of "torture" cited at GITMO, was having female interrogators dress up like hookers and sit in the "terrorists" lap. That ain't torture. That's a lap dance.

[AmericaFyeah92]

those assholes at guantanamo get better health care than they'd have otherwise, people.


And what do you think would happen to them in the prisons of their native countries?

they are lucky they were captured by us rather than the Saudis, Egyptians, Pakis, etc.