Does Torture Prevent Terror?

[Demigod]

I'd have to say its about as effective as droning schools and cluster bombing goat herding tribes.

Exactly you can't use as it as a scalpel you have to use it as a hammer. Water boarding some goat herders here and there has no effect,put a city on stakes and see them tremble.Of course everything should be done in moderation because if you push them too hard you would leave them no space except to fight to the death.

[Crashland]

And what would have made said people want to nuke us to begin with? Are they just jealous of all our Freedoms? Or maybe this conflict is self sustaining and never ending and we do not listen to reason or random acts of peace? I think it is because they are sitting on something we want (*cough*, oil) and that gives the powers that be justifiable cause to make all people the enemy so TPTB can take what they want from their enemies. Every president, EVERY President since what, Kennedy, has attacked Iraq? And we still seriously sit here and wonder why they hate us? Of all the people you have ever heard of in your entire lives, have you ever heard of any that wanted to nuke Canada? How about the Dominican Republic? Ever hear of a Terrorist who has something against the lone state of Idaho, but no beef with the rest of the USA? I rather doubt it. If we truly understand why they hate us, maybe we can do something about it then. This BS of "they hate us for our Freedoms" has to stop because people stop thinking when they are fed any answer, even if it is the wrong one.

The terrorists are doing a lousy job telling the world what their motivations really are though. All we ever see on TV is a bunch of crazies beheading people and shouting Allah Akbar. If someone claims they are primarily motivated by hateful religious $#@! as opposed to political $#@!, it is a bit hard to disagree

[otherone]

The terrorists are doing a lousy job telling the world what their motivations really are though. All we ever see on TV...

[pcosmar]

A more interesting wording for this poll would have been "Is torture ever an effective interrogation tactic?"

Same answer.

[pcosmar]

. All we ever see on TV is a bunch of crazies beheading people and shouting Allah Akbar.

Stop watching TV.

They are not showing you what you want to see.
They are showing you what they want you to see.

[pcosmar]

[jmdrake]

The belief that torture can prevent terrorism is like believing that diet soda can prevent obesity.



Seriously. we go around funding terrorism, then when what we fund bears fruit we turn around and say "We need to invade some countries, drone bomb some brown people, torture people, and take away civil rights from Americans to stop terrorism. After all they hate us for our freedoms. So let's be less free!"

[DamianTV]

I'll try not to derail the thread but I just gotta ask, is it possible that a few of our very same Politicians are just as brainwashed by the MSM as most people are? Would they also only see citizens of the Middle East as a bunch of crazies all just running around shouting "Death to the Great Satan" and "Allah Akbar" as if these people were the only able to utter two phrases?

[mrsat_98]

torture is terror.

You beat me to it and no one got it.

[Crashland]

Stop watching TV.

They are not showing you what you want to see.
They are showing you what they want you to see.

Well, TV is the censored version. If you really want your fix of gory allahu akbar-fests there are better places to find them

[Crashland]

A more interesting wording for this poll would have been "Is torture ever an effective interrogation tactic?"

Same answer.

Some would answer the same way, but it would not be unanimous like this poll is.

[acptulsa]

Now, how is Torture not a form of Terrorism in and of itself?

torture is terror.

This.

Can using terrorism prevent terrorism?

Of course not. If you use it, you haven't prevented it. QED

[Crashland]

This.

Can using terrorism prevent terrorism?

Of course not. If you use it, you haven't prevented it. QED

How about instead, can using an act of terror prevent an even worse act of terror?

[JK/SEA]

How about instead, can using an act of terror prevent an even worse act of terror?

well $#@!...how about this...Congress declares war. Cut out the middle man and save a few lives and treasure.

[HVACTech]

Of course not. If you use it, you haven't prevented it. QED

nuff said.

[Henry Rogue]

I'll try not to derail the thread but I just gotta ask, is it possible that a few of our very same Politicians are just as brainwashed by the MSM as most people are? Would they also only see citizens of the Middle East as a bunch of crazies all just running around shouting "Death to the Great Satan" and "Allah Akbar" as if these people were the only able to utter two phrases?

Plausible deniability?

[Uriah]

yes or no it doesn't matter. Torture is immoral.

[Crashland]

I'll try not to derail the thread but I just gotta ask, is it possible that a few of our very same Politicians are just as brainwashed by the MSM as most people are? Would they also only see citizens of the Middle East as a bunch of crazies all just running around shouting "Death to the Great Satan" and "Allah Akbar" as if these people were the only able to utter two phrases?

Plausible deniability?

Doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. If you're elected to a high office you have a responsibility to make sure you don't get brainwashed and that you have as much information as possible when you are making decisions that for many people are a matter of life and death.

[JK/SEA]

yes or no it doesn't matter. Torture is immoral.

truth.

[jkob]

Beat to saying torture is terror and it begets more violence in response to it, you don't think Abu Ghraib has played a part in why ISIS has been so successful with winning support of the populace over in Iraq? We have to opt out of this cycle of violence for it to stop, we can't torture/rape/kill our way to victory and to do so would mean genocide. They don't hate us for our freedom dumby.

[Occam's Banana]

Problem is, unless you have access to classified intelligence, you aren't in a position to know whether we do or don't in fact have ticking time bomb (or equivalent) scenarios going on.

Problem is, you aren't in a position to "know" whether we do or don't in fact have "ticking time-bomb" scenarios going on even if you DO have access to classified intelligence. For example, in the following quote, just replace "African-American Muslim terrorists" and "black Muslim Al Qaeda operatives" with "ticking time-bombs" (or just keep it in the original - in which case it is exactly one of those "equivalent" scenarios to which Crashland parenthetically referred ...):

FTA: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-queen-torture (h/t Lucille: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...een-of-Torture)
[strikeouts added]

[T]he C.I.A. mistakenly believed that African-American Muslim terrorists "ticking time-bombs" were already in the United States. The intelligence officials evidently pressed [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks] so hard to confirm this, under such physical duress, that he eventually did, even though it was false—leading U.S. officials on a wild-goose chase for black Muslim Al Qaeda operatives "ticking time-bombs" in Montana.

As this "real-world" and entirely non-hypothetical example illustrates, torture is nothing but a particularly nasty and vicious form of confirmation bias in action. This is futher evidenced by the fondness of its defenders for surreal "ticking time-bomb" hypotheticals in which it is assumed that the torturers somehow "know" everything except where the "ticking time-bomb" is (just like those CIA bozos "knew" that "African-American Muslim terrorists were already in the United States" ...).

Laurence Vance sums it up perfectly over at LRC:

Thomas Sowell Defends Torture Yet Again
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...ure-yet-again/
Laurence M. Vance (19 December 2014)

It is sad to see the brilliant conservative Thomas Sowell defending torture yet again. He did so back in 2009 and I criticized him for it then. Now, with the release of the CIA torture report, he is at it again:

If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City—set to go off today—and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when? Would you pause to look up the definition of “torture”? Would you even care what the definition of “torture” was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?

Gee, if we knew there was a bomb and we knew it was going off today and we captured someone whom we knew was a terrorist and we knew that he knew where the bomb was and we knew that he knew when the bomb would go off, why wouldn’t we also know these things?

[kcchiefs6465]

Problem is, you are not in a position to "know" whether we do or don't in fact have a "ticking time-bomb" scenario going on even if you DO have access to classified intelligence.

FTA: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-queen-torture (h/t Lucille: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...een-of-Torture)


Torture is nothing but a particularly nasty and vicious form of confirmation bias - as evidenced by the fondness of its defenders for "ticking time-bomb" hypotheticals in which the torturers somehow "know" everything except where the "ticking time-bomb" is (just like those CIA bozos "knew" there were "African-American Muslim terrorists ... already in the United States").

Laurence Vance sums it up perfectly over at LRC ...

Thomas Sowell Defends Torture Yet Again
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...ure-yet-again/
Laurence M. Vance (19 December 2014)

It is sad to see the brilliant conservative Thomas Sowell defending torture yet again. He did so back in 2009 and I criticized him for it then. Now, with the release of the CIA torture report, he is at it again:

If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City—set to go off today—and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when? Would you pause to look up the definition of “torture”? Would you even care what the definition of “torture” was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?

Gee, if we knew there was a bomb and we knew it was going off today and we captured someone whom we knew was a terrorist and we knew that he knew where the bomb was and we knew that he knew when the bomb would go off, why wouldn’t we also know these things?

Just another caveat of the unreliability of torture with regards to this absurd and incredibly unlikely scenario, but why wouldn't the bomb planter, who could be assumed to be somewhat absolute in their resolve, simply say it is located at X, Y, or Z until the allotted time passed?

This ignores the fact of the matter which is: Their intelligence is flimsy and unreliable which is particularly predictable with regards to the largess and sheer bureaucracy of these agencies.

Many innocents are tortured with methodology that was derived from SERE trainers and psychologists. It isn't a simple, "No physical harm, no foul (though they do routinely use physical methods to hear what they wish to hear)," the very goal of the interrogation is to promote insanity. It's one of the reasons why those in Guantanamo are not being released even if it is provable that they are indeed innocent.

There are countless books written on the matter more precise and source worthy than I, but the truth is evident. Honestly it is simply old having to respond to the same fallacious remarks year in and year out.

-Unreliable.
-Unnecessary.
-Immoral.
-Promotes the same thing to be done to American travelers.
-Fuels jihadist activities and recruitment efforts.

The list really goes on and on.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why do you think it does, Specs?

Do you feel that places such as Abu Ghraib promote terrorism or serve as a recruitment tool?

[specsaregood]

Why do you think it does, Specs?

So all you people that voted "No"; you mean to tell me that you dont' think torture ever has or could have prevented a terror attack throughout all of history?

Do you feel that places such as Abu Ghraib promote terrorism or serve as a recruitment tool?

I think it probably served as a recruitment tool. but that wasn't the question.

[kcchiefs6465]

So all you people that voted "No"; you mean to tell me that you dont' think torture ever has or could have prevented a terror attack throughout all of history?

I think it probably served as a recruitment tool. but that wasn't the question.

I suppose with regards to the relatively infinite scenarios that have occurred within human existence, maybe. It is pretty clear what the OP was referring to, though, but I suppose if semantically you disagree with the wording and are simply speaking of what might could occur with regards to the entirety of human existence, your point is noticed.

And as well, it is hard to positively prove a negative (especially given the classified non-answers Americans would be wise to recognize). For instance, no major terrorist attack has occurred since 9/11. They claim it to be the result of their interrogation methods. Of course their premise is bull$#@!, there have been plenty of terrorist attacks (at least one of which being within the US) and as well, they are well paid propagandists but nonetheless, how am I to definitively prove that the reason why the US has not suffered catastrophic losses is the result of the torture occurring in various clandestine sites? And much more so with regards to all of human history.

Yes, the tyrants who abduct and torture people always have a reason for the abduction and subsequent torture and yes, the tyrants always proffer the benefits of said immoral action. What does that mean to me? Or was it a simple, "I'll disagree because of the arguably poor word choice of the particular question"? I, as well as 45 others, seemed to have recognized the point of the question quite fine absent any special clairvoyance on the specifics on the millions of instances of torture being used throughout human history and the possible crimes prevented.

[specsaregood]

The poll question misses the point. The real question should be even if torture works to prevent terrorism, is it worth it? to that I would say NO.

[DamianTV]

The poll question misses the point. The real question should be even if torture works to prevent terrorism, is it worth it? to that I would say NO.

I didnt miss the point.

The point was not the question itself, but the phrasing of the question.

Now, if someone wants to come along in other threads, we could rephrase the question later as if it were the original question (thread title) and claim that 100% of <insert label for us> feel that <insert label for torture> is <rephrased form of Ineffective>. So does this really mean that 100% of Libertarian Pussies think that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques dont prevent Terroist Attacks? Or could it be re-re-rephrased over and over again to maybe say that 100% of Earth Citizens believe that Torture cant prevent Provoked Responses, out of X number of Earthlings polled.

The PHRASING of the Poll Question has always been the real point of the thread. And, it does make for a good debate as how the "Leaders of the Free World" will choose to allow their Government to behave. I think it is debatable because there are valid points on both sides. Yes, information can be gathered. And Yes, when we torture someone for that information of this event, we cascade and cause even more terrorist events.